WotC updates SRD resources page with CC faq and SRD 5.1 under CC

[Snarf Zagyg]

The status of the other WotC SRDs released under the 1.0a definitely is a WotC issue though.

Guess what? OGL 1.0a is still there, and still with the exact same status it had before.

The problem with its status are problems inherent with the license, and cannot be cured by a FAQ.

 

[Jer]

If that's all they cared about, they could have released 5.1 to the CC and still tried to de-auth the 1.0a. The ability to use the 5.1 SRD would be unaffected.

No because that wouldn't have ended the maelstrom of bad PR. It probably would have made it worse and would have muddied up any goodwill they got from the CC-BY release of the core rules.

As to why they didn't just release the 3e SRD to CC - they have memory holed the 3e SRD as much as they possibly can. I am not even sure that they thought that the revocation of the OGL 1.0a was an attack on 3e versions of the game or the rest of the industry's use of the license. I think they were mostly targeting folks making 5e compatible stuff and the broader folks still using 3e SRD material weren't even on their radar.

If you think that's an impossible thing and that they couldn't possibly be that ignorant of the market they are a part of, be aware that one of my fundamental beliefs about the current executives at Wizards are that they're fairly ignorant of the actual dynamics of the markets they are in because they have no actual history working in any of them - they're mostly digital people, not analog.

 

[Reynard]

I hate to say it, but a lot of this comes from misunderstanding the OGL. There's nothing in the OGL that forces creators to share their stuff as OGC. It's certainly in the spirit of the OGL, but not actually in the letter of the OGL. If you wrongly assume it did (it didn't), then of course you'll see the CC-BY license as more restrictive. But that's entirely based on an incorrect understanding of the OGL.

The OGL clearly defines both PI and OGC. As far as a I know, no one was ever tested for trying to circumvent those definitions, but they should have been.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Emphasis mine -- they did, in fact. Not that anyone ever called anyone on it. But the definition of "Product Identity" in the OGL is pretty solidly NOT game emchanics, and the definition of OGC is anything derivative of OGC. You*might* be able to make an argument for, say, the AiME adaptation of the TOR Journey rules since they weren't originally based on OGC, but by using SRD stats and skills in the rolls, it's questionable.

Just because a lot of people tried to avoid supporting Open Gaming while benefiting from it doesn't make it right.

Again ... this is now a 3PP issue, not a Wizards issue.

If you keep insisting that the real problem is that you don't trust the 3PPs to do the right thing, that's a separate issue entirely. WoTC released the 5.1 SRD under the most open of the CC licenses.

 

[Reynard]

Again ... this is now a 3PP issue, not a Wizards issue.

If you keep insisting that the real problem is that you don't trust the 3PPs to do the right thing, that's a separate issue entirely. WoTC released the 5.1 SRD under the most open of the CC licenses.

I'm not sure why you are repeating this when I gave you the context in the way I used the term.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

The publishers that didn't care about paying it forward should be happy with the CC-BY SRD, the only thing that changes is them not having to say all my content is PI.

I'm glad the ORC is still in development for folks that want to support open gaming and the OGC ecosystem.

 

[Jer]

I hate to say it, but a lot of this comes from misunderstanding the OGL. There's nothing in the OGL that forces creators to share their stuff as OGC. It's certainly in the spirit of the OGL, but not actually in the letter of the OGL. If you wrongly assume it did (it didn't), then of course you'll see the CC-BY license as more restrictive. But that's entirely based on an incorrect understanding of the OGL.

This is all true, and there are a lot of examples of companies basically using the OGL as if it had no sharealike clause.

However I will say that the OGL makes it a lot easier to share material than a CC-BY license does because with the OGL it's an "opt out" on what you're sharing, whereas with a CC-BY it's opt-in and you have to figure out how to designate what you're sharing instead of outlining explicitly what you're not sharing.

CC-BY-SA is the absolute wrong license to use and would have had Wizards accused of bad faith if they'd done it. CC-BY-SA has no provision for opting anything out and so most companies wouldn't want to go near it.

There's a real gap in the CC licenses where an OGL style "opt out" SA license would fit nicely. It does rely on people playing nice, but it doesn't put any extra barriers up for the folks who want to play nice.

 

[rules.mechanic]

I found this statement interesting:

Will more content be added to the SRD? The full 5th edition game and its expansions are available for use via the DMs Guild. New material will be added to the SRD if it is necessary to keep this document and its contents compatible with the latest D&D rules.

 

[overgeeked]

The OGL clearly defines both PI and OGC. As far as a I know, no one was ever tested for trying to circumvent those definitions, but they should have been.

If publisher X uses the OGC of publisher Y and changes it a bit, that new, changed bit is not by default OGC. You seem to think, and repeatedly insist, that it is OGC...but it is not. That's never been how the OGL worked. Whatever content the publisher makes OGC is all that's OGC. If someone wants to stand on the shoulders of OGC and not release their stuff as OGC, that's entirely their choice. You and I agree that they should, but there's nothing in the OGL that requires them to. The CC-BY license is far more open than the OGL.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is all true, and there are a lot of examples of companies basically using the OGL as if it had no sharealike clause.

However I will say that the OGL makes it a lot easier to share material than a CC-BY license does because with the OGL it's an "opt out" on what you're sharing, whereas with a CC-BY it's opt-in and you have to figure out how to designate what you're sharing instead of outlining explicitly what you're not sharing.

CC-BY-SA is the absolute wrong license to use and would have had Wizards accused of bad faith if they'd done it. CC-BY-SA has no provision for opting anything out and so most companies wouldn't want to go near it.

There's a real gap in the CC licenses where an OGL style "opt out" SA license would fit nicely. It does rely on people playing nice, but it doesn't put any extra barriers up for the folks who want to play nice.

I think that there are some fundamental issues with the approach of the OGL from a legal perspective that haven't been truly examined until recently.

The issues with copyleft and public licenses have been iterated and discussed for, what, 40 years now, and some of them keep coming up- fundamentally, this is why we see the approach taken by Creative Commons.

But that's a whole 'nother issue.