mamba
Legend
it removed the uncertainty for 5e. As that is the only version WotC cares about at this point, it also removed it from the OGL at large. There is nothing in it for them to go after products based on the 3e SRD, OGL or not
D&D General So what about the SRDs?
- Thread starter overgeeked
- Start date
I think this points to a misunderstanding of the purpose of an SRD and/or an open license.
My question is — what 3.5 compatible content can you not create using the 5E SRD? Even the CC version? Specifically, what is the use case?
You can make a 3.5 feat. The word ‘feat’ is in the 5E SRD. As are hit points, AC, all the D&D-based terminology you might need. Obviously your 3.5 feat’s name will be your own. What is it you can’t do?
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
Here's the thing about that: the "uncertainty" around the OGL comes from not being sure whether or not WotC could actually live up to its threat of revoking the OGL. Even though most people (including most of the lawyers who chimed in on the issue, here and elsewhere) were pretty sure they couldn't actually follow through on their threat, no one was 100% sure about that.
More importantly, no one wanted to be the guinea pig who went bankrupt trying to prove that in court.
But what most people seem to have overlooked is that this same scenario—where WotC issues a legal threat that seems dubious to most people, but no one is completely certain, and nobody wants to be the one to try to put the lie to it—is just as true for the CC as it is for the OGL.
True, WotC doesn't own the Creative Commons like they do the Open Game License, but that's a distinction without a difference where making a probably-bunk-but-nobody-is-totally-certain threat is concerned. If WotC were to issue a statement saying "Because the text of the CC-BY-4.0 doesn't say that a creator cannot 'withdraw' their work, we're removing the 5.1 SRD from the Creative Commons as of [this date]. Anyone who continues to use it after the date given will be prosecuted for civil and criminal penalties to the fullest extent of the law," most people would snort and say that statement was completely bunk, and they're probably be right...but no one would be entirely sure. And I suspect no one would want to go to court to try and prove WotC wrong either.
(I'll point out that there's a lot more case law surrounding the CC than there is for the OGL, but the thing to remember there is that you have to already be engaged in litigation to make use of that. If WotC sues you for continuing to use the 5.1 SRD under the CC in the above scenario, then unless you can get a declaration of summary judgment dismissing their suit, you'll still be in for a long and expensive discovery process...and that presumes that all of the case law is on your side anyway.)
All of which is to say that no license can erase fear, uncertainty, and doubt, even if it's intended to do exactly that. When the threat that's made is predicated on bogus legal posturing from a multinational corporation, the specifics of the license that's being threatened are relatively minor details.
The CC isn't any safer than the OGL, in that regard; it just looks like it is. So there's no real reason not to keep using the OGL rather than waiting for the CC to have the same SRDs published under it.
bedir than
Full Moon Storyteller
One of the things that I expect Wizards to be working on is an FAQ or similar document. Recall that when they released 5.1 into the CC BY people on the internet exploded into thinking, wrongly, that meant they could use Strahd and Tasha however they wanted as if the mere mention of them by name released the entire IP away from Wizards.
By this logic, we don't need SRDs at all.
aiouh
Explorer
I mean, Swords & Wizardry, Old School Essentials and OSRIC exist and none of the TSR games referenced are openly licensed or in the OGL
Then you fundamentally misunderstood my post. Or how SRDs and open licenses are used. Or both.
They did make a commitment in a DNDBeyond posting to release an updated SRD "within weeks" of the release of the new Monster Manual.
We're on week 8.
I think if we get it in 2025, that's fine. It took 2-3 years between the release of 5E and the 5E SRD.
However, if we don't get an update in 2025, then yes they definitely reneged on a public commitment and deserve to be called out for it.
For me, having the 5E SRD in Creative Commons is more than I really hoped for and if that's all we ever get I'm fine with it, because it contains what 3rd party creators really need from D&D.
We're on week 8.
I think if we get it in 2025, that's fine. It took 2-3 years between the release of 5E and the 5E SRD.
However, if we don't get an update in 2025, then yes they definitely reneged on a public commitment and deserve to be called out for it.
For me, having the 5E SRD in Creative Commons is more than I really hoped for and if that's all we ever get I'm fine with it, because it contains what 3rd party creators really need from D&D.
I would posit that I am about as experienced in their usage as it’s possible to be. I’ve been using them consistently for the 25 years since they were first dreamed up as a glint in Ryan Dancey’s eye, and I’m still using them for my current work.
Similar Threads
