D&D (2024) WotC Announces April 22 Release For 2024 System Reference Documents

The System Reference Document 5.2--the tool which helps developers create third-party content using the Dungeons & Dragons core rules engine--will be released under the Creative Commons license on April 22nd.

Additionally, Wizards of the Coast will publish a Conversion Guide for updating game content from the 2014 edition to the 2024 edition. This guide will arrive at a later date.

The Free Rules document on D&D Beyond will also be updated with new D&D Beyond Basic Rules (2024).

The older 5.1 SRD, which is based on the 2014 edition of D&D, will also remain available under both Creative Commons and the Open Game License (OGL).

More information will be available on April 22nd, when the new SRD is released.

A copy of each System Reference Document is stored independently at A5ESRD.com, which includes the 5.1 SRD, the revised 3.5 SRD, and other System Reference Documents (including the enormous A5E SRD).

 

[Hussar]

And yet most publishers didn't do that, which I think is worthy of respect.

But you can't then turn around and claim that CC-BY is less open. If the OGL can be used in exactly the same way as this:

if a publisher uses CC BY material to create derivative work, they're under no obligation to release that work as being itself open

then what's the difference? In both cases, publishers are under no obligation to release that work as open. Now, I agree, most publishers using the OGL didn't do that, and, yes, fine and dandy. But, what makes you think that switching to CC is suddenly going to make publishers change their stance?

 

[Alzrius]

But you can't then turn around and claim that CC-BY is less open. If the OGL can be used in exactly the same way as this:

Yes, you can claim the CC-BY is less open than the OGL (mostly because, you know, it is). Even "crippled" Open Game Content still released the mechanics as OGC, and while having to create new names and write new flavor text was burdensome it was still better than having to create everything from scratch.

then what's the difference? In both cases, publishers are under no obligation to release that work as open. Now, I agree, most publishers using the OGL didn't do that, and, yes, fine and dandy. But, what makes you think that switching to CC is suddenly going to make publishers change their stance?

See above. It's extremely disingenuous to say "what's the difference" when comparing a license which mandates releasing derivative content as open and one which doesn't; literally, that's the difference, and it's an important one. And while I'm glad you've dropped that ridiculous "mountains of broken content" idea and admitted that most publishers didn't release crippled OGC, the idea that most publishers will release the same degree of content under the CC-BY that they did under the OGL misses the point; there's a reason why the community looked down on publishers who closed as much content as possible, coming up with the "crippled content" moniker to express their derision for actions that were technically in compliance with the license but went against its spirit. I have yet to hear of anything like that being done for the CC-BY, suggesting a more general air of permissiveness for publishers who use open content without themselves making anything open.

 

[Hussar]

I have yet to hear of anything like that being done for the CC-BY

Has there been any 3pp who have released crippled content under the CC-BY?

I mean, the term crippled content came after OGL producers produced crippled content, not before. So, has there been a bunch of releases of crippled content under teh CC-BY or is this just completely hypothetical on your part?

 

[Alzrius]

Has there been any 3pp who have released crippled content under the CC-BY?

So it's your position that no publisher has done this? (Also, it's not a question of releasing crippled content under the CC-BY; it's that they don't need to release anything at all.)

I mean, the term crippled content came after OGL producers produced crippled content, not before. So, has there been a bunch of releases of crippled content under teh CC-BY or is this just completely hypothetical on your part?

If your stance is that every single publisher that has put out material under the CC-BY has done so with OGL-levels of openness, making literally all of their derivative content be open, then you're going to need to actually demonstrate that instead of putting it forward as a hypothetical on your part.

 

[mamba]

Yes, you can claim the CC-BY is less open than the OGL (mostly because, you know, it is).

you are using ‘open’ differently from anyone else. Usually more open = fewer restrictions, which makes CC-BY the more open license.

“CC-BY or Creative Commons Attribution is considered the most open of the CC licenses”

LibGuides: Creative Commons Licenses Explained: Most Open

This guide is designed to walk you through the different types of CC Licenses and the benefits and drawbacks of each, so that when it comes to picking a license for your work, you can make an educated choice.

libguides.hartford.edu

“[CC-BY] This the most open of the six licenses, permitting the broadest sharing and reuse.”

Which Creative Commons license should I choose?

When you upload your article, you are asked to choose a Creative Commons reuse license. Creative Commons (CC) licenses are a way for creators to encourage broad dissemination of their work by indicating to readers that the work can be reused and ...

help.oapolicy.universityofcalifornia.edu

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

CC-BY is more open in that it allows for more use cases, including restricting use of derivative content. So yes, it is more open and less open than something like ORC, in different senses of open.

 

[Alzrius]

you are using ‘open’ differently from anyone else. Usually more open = fewer restrictions, which makes CC-BY the more open license.

You're wrong. The CC-BY is less open because it gives publishers the option of adding more restrictions, i.e. they can restrict what would otherwise necessarily be open content under the OGL. If you create less open content, then that content is restricted; hence the license is less open.

“CC-BY or Creative Commons Attribution is considered the most open of the CC licenses”

LibGuides: Creative Commons Licenses Explained: Most Open

This guide is designed to walk you through the different types of CC Licenses and the benefits and drawbacks of each, so that when it comes to picking a license for your work, you can make an educated choice.

libguides.hartford.edu

Notice that this doesn't compare the CC-BY to the OGL, and so isn't providing anything useful to this discussion.

“[CC-BY] This the most open of the six licenses, permitting the broadest sharing and reuse.”

Which Creative Commons license should I choose?

When you upload your article, you are asked to choose a Creative Commons reuse license. Creative Commons (CC) licenses are a way for creators to encourage broad dissemination of their work by indicating to readers that the work can be reused and ...

help.oapolicy.universityofcalifornia.edu

See above. If all that article is comparing the CC-BY to is the other CC licenses, then it's not relevant to what we're talking about.

 

[kenmarable]

You're wrong. The CC-BY is less open because it gives publishers the option of adding more restrictions, i.e. they can restrict what would otherwise necessarily be open content under the OGL. If you create less open content, then that content is restricted; hence the license is less open.

So, if I understand this, you are saying:

Under OGL - Product A releases some OGC. Product B uses that OGC and has to release their own.

Under CC-BY - Product A releases some open content. Product B uses that content but does not have to release it's own.

So therefore OGL is "more open" than CC-BY because of it's viral nature and forcing a chain of open products?

That is true that the OGL encourages a chain of openness that CC-BY does not (but CC-SA does), but also that is not the standard definition of what makes a license "more open" in general conversations. When discussing copyleft licenses, I have never heard the "openness" of a license defined that way. The standard definition of how open a license is looks at the product/content being licensed not some vague, general community they create or not, nor at hypothetical chain of derived products. It looks at the licensed content and only the licensed content.

CC-BY Product A allows for the widest range of uses, and is therefore more open in the way that nearly everyone uses the term. The content licensed by CC-BY is nearly as unrestricted as it can get. That licensed content can have no further restrictions placed on it. So it is the most open content (aside from public domain, etc.).

If you want to talk about how "viral" a license is, then OGL and CC-SA are far more viral, but only because they place restrictions on the use of the content that CC-BY does not.

Regardless, the bottom line is that you are correct that the OGL forces/encourages a greater community of open content, just you are applying a label to it that others do not. Typical definitions call that aspect how viral a license is, not how open it is. You aren't wrong, just using words differently than they are traditionally used.

 

[Alzrius]

So, if I understand this, you are saying:

Under OGL - Product A releases some OGC. Product B uses that OGC and has to release their own.

Under CC-BY - Product A releases some open content. Product B uses that content but does not have to release it's own.

So therefore OGL is "more open" than CC-BY because of it's viral nature and forcing a chain of open products?

That is true that the OGL encourages a chain of openness that CC-BY does not (but CC-SA does), but also that is not the standard definition of what makes a license "more open" in general conversations. When discussing copyleft licenses, I have never heard the "openness" of a license defined that way. The standard definition of how open a license is looks at the product/content being licensed not some vague, general community they create or not, nor at hypothetical chain of derived products. It looks at the licensed content and only the licensed content.

CC-BY Product A allows for the widest range of uses, and is therefore more open in the way that nearly everyone uses the term. The content licensed by CC-BY is nearly as unrestricted as it can get. That licensed content can have no further restrictions placed on it. So it is the most open content (aside from public domain, etc.).

If you want to talk about how "viral" a license is, then OGL and CC-SA are far more viral, but only because they place restrictions on the use of the content that CC-BY does not.

Regardless, the bottom line is that you are correct that the OGL forces/encourages a greater community of open content, just you are applying a label to it that others do not. Typical definitions call that aspect how viral a license is, not how open it is. You aren't wrong, just using words differently than they are traditionally used.

Regarding the issue of semantics, I'll say that this does not match the experience of myself or numerous other people I've spoken to, both casually and professionally, in the TTRPG community. I don't know how things are talked about in other communities that use other licenses, but everyone in this one has always referred to "openness" as referring to the amount of content that's released, not the idea that publishers have leeway to do whatever they want. I suspect that this is (for lack of a better term) "definition drift" with regard to "Open Game Content" becoming "open content," or maybe that the Open Game License simply became the default for how an "open license" is thought of. Either way, it's how it's used in the TTRPG community today.

 

[mamba]

You're wrong. The CC-BY is less open because it gives publishers the option of adding more restrictions

no, more open = less restrictive, I am not wrong, that is how it is generally being used when comparing the openness of licenses. That you use it differently does not make me wrong

The license is more open, the publisher and what they release under it is irrelevant to this

Notice that this doesn't compare the CC-BY to the OGL

they don’t have to, the same principle applies. The OGL is basically CC-BY-SA (with IP carveouts), and they did not call that one the most open CC license