D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[Mark CMG]

Mearls and Perkins have hinted very strongly at such a document existing. What they haven't stated (that I've seen) is how much it's been shared with the contractors or simply been used in-house to vet the contractor's work against.

Certainly makes sense that they've having a living document for in house use. I'd imagine, though, that after their initial meetings over what sort of work is being contracted they give the design team something broader to work with so they have plenty of room to run with their early ideas. NDAs would be in place, of course, so there's no reason not to let them utilize whatever in house "bible" they already have in place.

 

[Mark CMG]

Referencing one source means you need to reference their sources. So, by referencing a Pathfinder book, you need to reference the SRD. There are precious few resources in the OGL that do not reference the SRD.
Yes, there's a lot you can use. But there's also restrictions, which is why Creative Commons was embraced by other companies. If you're not doing the d20 route and want nothing from the SRD, then there's little benefit gained from the OGL.

You're kinda misstating things here again. If someone utilized the SRD to create some material and then goes on and add some OGC whole cloth within it, yes everything in their Section 15 would need to also be cited in any subsequent Section 15 that used any OGC from that source. That doesn't mean the subsequent document actually has to use anything from the SRD. One might also use in that same document some OGC from a source that didn't cite the SRD because it hadn't used anything from the SRD nor any source that had either, and yes, in that case the subsequent document would include the citation(s) from that Section 15 in its Section 15 as well. But what you are trying to say is that you know of precious few documents that use the OGL that haven't cited the SRD, not that there are precious few nor that you know with any certainty how much actual OGC is in any document that was derived from OGC in the SRD. It's a distinction from which I think you might want to steer away while unclear on that distinction.

It's understated. I think most people equate the OGL with the SRD, or want a new licence.

Dude, it's starting to wear thin how you project your own experience on "most" folks. I get that you don't really understand what you are discussing. It's been pointed out repeatedly in this thread by more and more people. We can have this discussion without you invoking the masses in your corner. When I say 'most folks I know' it means folks I actually know. When you drop the word "most" you use it as a way that assumes folks are out there somewhere with your same experience without actually knowing if they exist to validate your claims. It's really not panning out the deeper into this discussion we get. Let's set that aside and move on. It's a faulty premise and the conclusions you assert from it lose their credibility.

 

[darjr]

No... wait. The contractors, like Sasquatch, working on a product to be printed by WotC don't need a license. They have a contract to work with the existing IP for WotC to publish. No SRD needed. Green Ronin even said as much in their interview.

I have heard of a thing that WotC has done for folks. Like the license for that digital desktop company, and the other one for that character generator, though it sounded like the latter was just a "keep it to basic" line.

Now does Sasquatch have something for their own product they just kickstarted? I don't think they do. Anybody hear different?

Anyway I think Mearls has already stated in an interview that the new license isn't the OGL, or at least what most folks expect, but he's sure that it'll be great. Also it sounds like Kobold Press has, maybe, seen it and is chomping to do a monster book as soon as it drops. Both the above from the tome show interviews from GenCon.

 

[delericho]

Now does Sasquatch have something for their own product they just kickstarted? I don't think they do. Anybody hear different?

Anyway I think Mearls has already stated in an interview that the new license isn't the OGL, or at least what most folks expect, but he's sure that it'll be great. Also it sounds like Kobold Press has, maybe, seen it and is chomping to do a monster book as soon as it drops. Both the above from the tome show interviews from GenCon.

Hmm...

As a thought, it's possible that the contract that Kobold, Sasquatch, and now Green Ronin signed to produce the adventures also grants them license to publish further works for 5e under some suitable set of parameters.

 

[Uchawi]

It appears WOTC is looking for the next Paizo, by testing out different third parties to write adventures, until they find some success. At that point, that third party may see some repeat business.

 

[Wicht]

Yes, there's a lot you can use. But there's also restrictions, which is why Creative Commons was embraced by other companies. If you're not doing the d20 route and want nothing from the SRD, then there's little benefit gained from the OGL.

So I already commented on this once, about not understanding what restrictions the OGL presents that are troublesome, but your statement made me curious as to what benefit there might be in using the CC license over the OGL license...

So I looked into it...

And I can't tell that there would be much of any advantage at all. In fact the CC might actually be something of a detriment to the goals of a publisher of RPG material. Firstly, there are actually six CC licenses and you need to understand specifically which one you want to use and why before you choose to use it. All of the CC licenses require attribution, same as the OGL, so thats actually a wash. Secondly, I am not sure that the CC licenses actually allow one to dilineate in a product between what is open and what is considered proprietary IP.

The OGL has the advantage then of being a known quantity specifically designed for RPG for-profit publication. It works exactly as necessary for this endeavor. It allows for IP dilineation at the discretion of the publisher, while still making rules Open and useable by other companies.

I must confess that I really don't see the point in messing around with a different license, with potential problems, when the OGL works so well, which is why I imagine most game companies tend to go with the OGL for their works if they want to make their works open.

I have to ask, what would be the advantage then of choosing the Creative Commons over the OGL? While one might claim the OGL is not superior to the CC, is the CC in any way superior in other ways? Why would one think that a gaming company would ever prefer the CC over the OGL?

 

[darjr]

Hmm...

As a thought, it's possible that the contract that Kobold, Sasquatch, and now Green Ronin signed to produce the adventures also grants them license to publish further works for 5e under some suitable set of parameters.

Don't think so. Mearls sounded like he'd never even heard of sasquatches 5e kickstarter.

 

[Jester David]

I have to ask, what would be the advantage then of choosing the Creative Commons over the OGL? While one might claim the OGL is not superior to the CC, is the CC in any way superior in other ways? Why would one think that a gaming company would ever prefer the CC over the OGL?

The CC is more flexible (not being all-or-nothing) and isn't "owned" by WotC, which can be big sticking points. And there are far more resources explaining CC to laypersons. But a more complete answer to that question is beyond me.

Fate has dipped its toe into CC: http://www.faterpg.com/licensing/li...hould-i-care-about-creative-commons-licenses/
There's discussion here: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=48596
And here: https://plus.google.com/+DavidHillJr/posts/YcKLTkwC54V

 

[Umbran]

The CC is more flexible (not being all-or-nothing) and isn't "owned" by WotC

The OGL is not "owned" by WotC.

 

[Nylanfs]

Umbran, yes the text of the OGL itself is non OGC and itself copyrighted by WoTC.