D&D General New OGL survey

[EzekielRaiden]

Since IANAL, I can't comment on the specifics of the legality of any of this, concerning the bolded ...

Isn't this better in many ways for content providers? If someone wants to give away all their stuff, great. But if I put out Bob's Bean Booms with a list of spells with a theme of exploding beans, no one can copy it without my permission. I don't see this as a bad thing since I would assume (again IANAL) I can always grant rights to anyone who wants to copy just by saying so.

I'm specifically talking the open gaming content portions.

Hence why I said "containing new open game content" (emphasis in original.) Under OGL 1.0a, if you create something including new OGC, other people can use that OGC themselves. If I understand the legal termionlogy correctly, the license is "transferable." I believe that a transferable license is important--it means both (1) WotC is not the only one who can sample from everyone's pies, and (2) iterating on open content can occur, which encourages creators to make their non-open content as good as it can be while allowing baseline awesome ideas to proliferate across the ecosystem. (And that word is EXTREMELY important, it really does need to be baseline, concepts like the Escalation Die from 13A for example.)

 

[Oofta]

I'm specifically talking the open gaming content portions.

Hence why I said "containing new open game content" (emphasis in original.) Under OGL 1.0a, if you create something including new OGC, other people can use that OGC themselves. If I understand the legal termionlogy correctly, the license is "transferable." I believe that a transferable license is important--it means both (1) WotC is not the only one who can sample from everyone's pies, and (2) iterating on open content can occur, which encourages creators to make their non-open content as good as it can be while allowing baseline awesome ideas to proliferate across the ecosystem. (And that word is EXTREMELY important, it really does need to be baseline, concepts like the Escalation Die from 13A for example.)

Which is why I would think you could label your product OGC if you want to do so. In the past it was the other way around, to protect something you have to mark it as PI. Currently OGL 1.0a pretty much forces you to share, under 1.2 (once again, IANAL) you could choose to share.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which is why I would think you could label your product OGC if you want to do so. In the past it was the other way around, to protect something you have to mark it as PI. Currently OGL 1.0a pretty much forces you to share, under 1.2 (once again, IANAL) you could choose to share.

Well that's the thing. Because it only talks about "Your Content" (made by the licensed creator) and "Our Content" (made by WotC), it doesn't allow you to share. Ever. Whether you want to or not. That's why I'm saying I want more clarity.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, I recognize the Arkhosia stuff isn't open...I explicitly said so.

I'm JUST talking dragonborn. Dragon-people with +Cha, +Str (if +stats are even relevant anymore), a dragon breath, and maybe some other stuff too. The term "dragonborn." Nothing else. No cultural data, no history, none of their depictions (though permission to make your own, as is the case with the owlbear--you cannot copy WotC's images, but you can draw your own owlbear images if you wish.) JUST the dragonborn itself.

Likewise, JUST "there is a class called 'Fighter,' which is really good at fighting. There is a class called 'sorcerer,' which gets power from a blood connection to magic. [etc., etc.]" I don't need nor want ANY of the specific details. JUST the super duper ultra basic terms and framework.

Edit: Also, you seem to have a confusion here. Something could be licensed under 1.0a (which dragonborn are, via the 5e SRD) but NOT licensed under the new CC stuff. Which dragonborn would not be. I want dragonborn to be CC. I want sorcerer and paladin and druid to be CC. Most of those things already are out of WotC's control anyway--Blizzard has had shapeshifting druids and holy-warrior paladins for literally decades at this point. Making those ultra-fundamental ideas (again, ZERO cultural, nominative, etc. content)

I genuinely do not believe that such basic rules for something like "dragonborn" (again, EXCLUSIVELY "this is a dragon-person with good Str/Cha who has a dragon breath and maybe a couple other physical features" and likewise for other PHB races/species) are so horrifically precious to D&D that they would be harmed by making such things CC.

Dragonborn are included in the new 1.2. The only difference between 1.0a for dragonborn, and 1.2, is you could not distribute racist or otherwise hateful content with it. Is that your objection?

 

[Oofta]

Well that's the thing. Because it only talks about "Your Content" (made by the licensed creator) and "Our Content" (made by WotC), it doesn't allow you to share. Ever. Whether you want to or not. That's why I'm saying I want more clarity.

If someone comes onto my property and takes my bicycle, it's theft. If I put it on the street corner and put on a sign "Take me I'm free" (or put it up on freesite) and someone take it, it's no longer theft. I can always choose to give something away as long as I own it free and clear.

But this might be a question for the lawyers on the other thread.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Dragonborn are included in the new 1.2. The only difference between 1.0a for dragonborn, and 1.2, is you could not distribute racist or otherwise hateful content with it. Is that your objection?

They are in the proposed OGL. I want them to be in the Creative Commons. That's all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If someone comes onto my property and takes my bicycle, it's theft. If I put it on the street corner and put on a sign "Take me I'm free" (or put it up on freesite) and someone take it, it's no longer theft. I can always choose to give something away as long as I own it free and clear.

But this might be a question for the lawyers on the other thread.

Again, that's the issue. If the "open gaming content" is only shared between WotC and each individual person, then no, you WOULD NOT be "free and clear" to let someone else use it. It would be a violation of the terms of the license for you to allow someone else to use your bicycle, in this metaphor--you can modify your bicycle as much as you want, and any mods you declare free-use could be used by WotC, but not by anyone else.

As I said, this is not necessarily forbidden, but it goes completely unmentioned, and thus could be considered forbidden by way of not being explicitly permitted. (That is, after all, how most licenses work--anything you aren't explicitly allowed to do is forbidden.) Hence, I want clarity; I am genuinely of the opinion that they want people to be able to share what parts of their work they declare to be Open Game Content. This is just making sure it is explicit and understood that you can do so, that the license is in fact transferable.

 

[Mistwell]

They are in the proposed OGL. I want them to be in the Creative Commons. That's all.

Which, again, the only meaningful difference being you cannot publish hateful content with the OGL but you can with CC. Is that your objection?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which, again, the only meaningful difference being you cannot publish hateful content with the OGL but you can with CC. Is that your objection?

No. Why do you keep asking? Are you seriously accusing me of being a racist, bigot, etc.? Why this incredibly hostile questioning?

I literally just want dragonborn to be CC licensed so they can be used no matter what happens to WotC! For God's sake, I'm just a fanboy!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Still not an OGL.

There's no share-alike, no OGC, and the fact that you're not allowed to contest WotC deciding something is hateful guarantees that sooner or later (probably) sooner, WotC will get it wrong and there will be no recourse.