The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[mamba]

His one is positive until proven otherwise, yours is negative.
He speaks about toxicity. 4e got totally unwaranted negativity from people who probably have not even read the books.

So no. You are not doing the same.

Tell me where I was negative about OneD&D, I don’t think I said anything about it at all…

We both are speculating, he just takes the most positive spin possible while from my perspective I am realistic about what the announcement means about the terms of 1.1

If he stuck to ‘none of this is final, wait for the facts’, I’d respect that, but no, we both are speculating

 

[GMforPowergamers]

no idea, but I am willing to bet that proving them wrong will be cost prohibitive

that is how big companies... (I want to say bully but that word will cause issues) compel smaller ones to do what they want

 

[UngeheuerLich]

IMO most people don’t need to read a book to know it’s not what they are looking for. Reviews and a few example paragraphs usually do the trick.

So you judge a book by the cover (mainly).

People wrote reviews without having played 4e. Internet reviews are often not reviews but often it is just rant.

 

[Cadence]

If you can't stop relitigating 4e in threads not about 4e, please go away before the thread gets shut down for the rest of us. It isn't hard, just stop responding.

 

[mamba]

People wrote reviews without having played 4e. Internet reviews are often not reviews but often it is just rant.

No one is writing a review of One D&D here

 

[FrogReaver]

So you judge a book by the cover (mainly).

I never said or implied that...

People wrote reviews without having played 4e.

Sorry but what does playing have to do with reading? - your initial claim was they never read it

Internet reviews are often not reviews but often it is just rant.

Maybe one mans rant is another man's review. I think it tends to depend on how much you agree with the reviewer/ranter.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I never said or implied that... (1)


Sorry but what does playing have to do with reading? - your initial claim was they never read it (2)

Maybe one mans rant is another man's review. I think it tends to depend on how much you agree with the reviewer/ranter. (3)

1. That was what you suggested. Reading the cover text and a few paragraphs. If I understood you wrong. Sorry.

2. I gave them the benefit of the doubt. From the reviews I read back then, people might not have read the core books.

3. Yes. But it is something to keep in mind. In the case of 4e, there were a lot of baseless claims...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No one is writing a review of One D&D here

But you are making up things. (As does Hussar*). Can we just wait a few days and see what is actually in the OGL 1.1.?

We have enough baseless idiocy on youtube.

*but I like his ideas way nore than yours, because of positivity. Yours sounds too much like "omg, wotc hates us all". If I got you wrong, people who want to inform themselves about what is ups with no background knwledge could get you wrong too and now wotc might have a cutomer/3rdPary creator less, based on nothing. So I think Hussar giving contra was a good thing.

 

[Maxperson]

You aren’t understanding what I’m saying.

They own the copyright to all the material. They can place it together in different products however they want. So yes, you will see orcs under many licenses. I’m saying you will not see the SRD 5.1 itself under different licenses and to my knowledge it never has been issued under another license.

*Note reading some of the comments from people more tied in the legal profession I could be wrong about this part as well, but I’m not suggesting that orcs can only be released under 1 license.

Make more sense?

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that I understand what you are saying now. No in the sense that I don't see why it matters.

WotC is changing the races, classes, monsters, etc. with the release of 5.5. They will need to put out a new SRD when that happens. If you want to use 5.1, you use OGL 1.0a. If you want to use SRD 5.2(made up name), then you would use OGL 1.1. The two SRDs could have 80%(made up number) of the same information used in them, with SRD 5.2 containing the 5.5 changes as the 20% difference between the two.

Now lets say you want to create a product that contains both SRD 5.1 and SRD 5.2 material. You should be able to do that from what I'm seeing. If you wanted to use 5e orcs because you like that particular stat block, you could use SRD 5.1 and OGL 1.0a. If you prefer the 5.5e trolls stat block, you'd use SRD 5.2 and OGL 1.1 to do it. As long as you comply with all the requirements for each OGL, that should be doable.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that I understand what you are saying now. No in the sense that I don't see why it matters.

IMO, for practical purposes it doesn't matter.

WotC is changing the races, classes, monsters, etc. with the release of 5.5. They will need to put out a new SRD when that happens. If you want to use 5.1, you use OGL 1.0a. If you want to use SRD 5.2(made up name), then you would use OGL 1.1. The two SRDs could have 80%(made up number) of the same information used in them, with SRD 5.2 containing the 5.5 changes as the 20% difference between the two.

Now lets say you want to create a product that contains both SRD 5.1 and SRD 5.2 material. You should be able to do that from what I'm seeing. If you wanted to use 5e orcs because you like that particular stat block, you could use SRD 5.1 and OGL 1.0a. If you prefer the 5.5e trolls stat block, you'd use SRD 5.2 and OGL 1.1 to do it. As long as you comply with all the requirements for each OGL, that should be doable.

Agreed.