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).

 

[Alzrius]

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

Yes, you are wrong. That's not how it's generally used when comparing the openness of licenses; at least, not in this community. That you say it's used differently elsewhere doesn't make you right.

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

No, the license is less open; the publisher and what they release under it is fundamental to this.

they don’t have to, the same principle applies.

If they're not comparing the CC-BY to the OGL, then they're not supporting your assertion about the former being more open than the latter. It's not a question of principle, it's a question of fact.

The OGL is basically CC-BY-SA (with IP carveouts), and they did not call that one the most open CC license

No, the OGL is not "basically" a completely different license. Making a parenthetical note of one of the major differences doesn't mean that you can say that it's the same.

 

[bedir than]

Yes, you are wrong. That's not how it's generally used when comparing the openness of licenses; at least, not in this community. That you say it's used differently elsewhere doesn't make you right.

Other designers, here on EN World, have also disagreed with the view that virality=openness.

It's part of why the Creative Commons is so popular - it uses plain language in what's permitted. It doesn't operate under the assumption that creators need to redefine terms in order to understand that anyone is open to use content shared under the CC BY.
That if you want virality you should use a different license, but many of those place limits, closing down what is available. Those restrictions make them less open, despite their title including the word Open.

 

[Alzrius]

Other designers, here on EN World, have also disagreed with the view that virality=openness.

Which certainly puts them out of step with how the community, here on EN World (and elsewhere), has been using it. Again, maybe that's how they use the term elsewhere (i.e. outside of the TTRPG space), but not here.

It's part of why the Creative Commons is so popular - it uses plain language in what's permitted.

That's not really a differentiating factor with regard to the OGL, which also uses plain language.

It doesn't operate under the assumption that creators need to redefine terms in order to understand that anyone is open to use content shared under the CC BY.

If the creators are redefining what content is released as open and what's not from product to product, then the license isn't making things easy to understand (or at least, not as easy as other licenses do).

That if you want virality you should use a different license, but many of those place limits, closing down what is available. Those restrictions make them less open, despite their title including the word Open.

I don't know about "many of those" other licenses, but the OGL sets a minimum level of what's available (e.g. you cannot close content that has already been made open), while still allowing for your own original content to be made open or kept closed. So it's not much of a limit. Likewise, "this license is more open because it lets me close more content" seems like a weird hill to die on.

 

[bedir than]

"this license is more open because it lets me close more content" seems like a weird hill to die on.

Using quotes in a reply to something I said, but I never said this.

It's not a hill I'm dying on. It's not a statement I made. It's not related to any statement I said.

 

[Alzrius]

Using quotes in a reply to something I said, but I never said this.

It's not a hill I'm dying on. It's not a statement I made. It's not related to any statement I said.

It's paraphrasing, and it accurately summarizes the inherent contradiction in calling the CC-BY a "more open" license than the OGL, despite the practical impact of its so-called "more open" nature being that it creates less open content.

 

[mamba]

Yes, you are wrong. That's not how it's generally used when comparing the openness of licenses

that is exactly how it is being used, that you use it differently does not change that, but it certainly adds confusion

If they're not comparing the CC-BY to the OGL, then they're not supporting your assertion about the former being more open than the latter.

the principle is still valid. If I compare 1 < 5 and 5 < 7 to establish that principle, then you can also arrive at 1 < 3 even when it was not one of the examples used to explain the principle

No, the OGL is not "basically" a completely different license. Making a parenthetical note of one of the major differences doesn't mean that you can say that it's the same.

just watch me, I can even say which of the two is more open according to the principles I used

 

[mamba]

If the creators are redefining what content is released as open and what's not from product to product, then the license isn't making things easy to understand (or at least, not as easy as other licenses do).

they are not redefining it under CC-BY, they either release it, or they don’t. If anything it is the OGL that defines anything it wants as IP

the OGL sets a minimum level of what's available (e.g. you cannot close content that has already been made open), while still allowing for your own original content to be made open or kept closed.

so just like the CC-BY then… what happened to your ‘they have to open their content’ idea?

 

[mamba]

It's paraphrasing, and it accurately summarizes the inherent contradiction in calling the CC-BY a "more open" license than the OGL, despite the practical impact of its so-called "more open" nature being that it creates less open content.

there is no contradiction, a license with less restrictions on the material licensed under it / the licensees is more open, that is the definition of ‘open’.

That a more restrictive license can force the licensee to release their content under that more restrictive license does not change that. The license is less open and more viral

The ‘contradiction’ is resolved as soon as you do not use the same term for different things

 

[Alzrius]

that is exactly how it is being used, that you use it differently does not change that, but it certainly adds confusion

You're the one using it differently, causing confusion when you're called out on your mistake.

the principle is still valid. If I compare 1 < 5 and 5 < 7 to establish that principle, then you can also arrive at 1 < 3 even with if it was not one of the examples used to explain the principle

No, the "principle" is not valid. A more apt example would be that you're saying you can compare an apple to an orange because they're both round, ignoring that they're not the same.

just watch me, I can even say which of the two is more open according to the principles I used

And you have every right to be wrong, but don't complain when people point that out to you.

they are not redefining it under CC-BY, they either release it, or they don’t. If anything it is the OGL that defines anything it wants as IP

Except they are redefining it, because the same material is open content under one product released under the CC-BY, and closed content under another product released under that exact same license. Under the OGL, open content is open content in every product where it appears.

so just like the CC-BY then… what happened to your ‘they have to open their content’ idea?

No, not at all like the CC-BY. Funny how you selectively forgot that bit about how the OGL requires that derivative open content must be open, whereas the CC-BY doesn't say that.

there is no contradiction, a license with less restrictions on the material licensed under it / the licensees is more open, that is the definition of ‘open’.

Except that's not the definition of open. Again, you're dying on the hill that says "the more open license is the one that lets you close more content!"

That a more restrictive license can force the licensee to release their content under that more restrictive license does not change that. The license is less open and more viral

That a more restrictive license allows for a publisher to use someone else's work, and then declare that no one else can use what they've derived from that work, does in fact change "that." A license which forbids pulling up the metaphorical ladder behind you is more open.

The ‘contradiction’ is resolved as soon as you do not use the same term for different things

You're the one saying that the license which creates more open content is less open, which demonstrates that you're using the same term to mean different things.

 

[mamba]

No, the "principle" is not valid. A more apt example would be that you're saying you can compare an apple to an orange because they're both round, ignoring that they're not the same.

I can compare them by weight, by color, by nutrition, we just need to agree on what the metric is

Except they are redefining it, because the same material is open content under one product released under the CC-BY, and closed content under another product released under that exact same license.

no, it is open content either way, but the licensee cannot be the licensor of content they do not own. That is true under the OGL as well, regardless of what gets carved out as IP

No, not at all like the CC-BY. Funny how you selectively forgot that bit about how the OGL requires that derivative open content must be open, whereas the CC-BY doesn't say that.

I did not forget it, I specifically asked you about it because you wrote “while still allowing for your own original content to be made open or kept closed” which is exactly how CC-BY handles it

Ultimately you are just using ‘open’ differently, we will have to disagree about how it should be used, I will continue using it just like I have done