Search results

Don't worry, this wasn't for your benefit. There were comments earlier to the effect of "Creative Commons wouldn't let WotC do X, Y or Z with their license."

I'm only just now catching up on several pages of this thread, but I'd like to point out some relevant information that was glossed over with regard to what role the Creative Commons organization might take in a hypothetical dispute between WotC and "Bob", who licensed the 5e SRD under CC-BY...

If you publish something derivative of the 5e SRD under the OGL, do the clauses barring you from using things like "beholder" apply to the specific derivative work, or would you be agreeing to never use that anywhere ever?

I don't think WotC will sign on to the ORC. I expect them to try to not do anything stupid, try to put this episode as far in the rear view mirror as possible, and then pretend like it never happened. Putting the SRD out under CC-BY seems to have stopped the bleeding in terms of bad press. WotC...

The ORC license doesn't even exist yet. Of course no one has released anything under it. Maybe give Paizo and their lawyers some time to actually write the thing first.

Of everything you've said in this thread, this is the only thing that really makes any sense. You use the word "culture" to describe the group of companies using the ORC license, but you're assuming that this will create a culture of common and compatible games, but that's not correct. Rallying...

How would you do conversions between, say, Microscope and Pathfinder?

The only difference that I can find between the OGL and CC-BY versions of the 5e SRD is that the CC-BY version lacks this sentence at the bottom of each page. :p

Everyone quit. No more game.

I like Ironsworn's progress tracks. They do a couple specific things with combat that I like. First, it adds book ends to both the start and end of combat. In D&D, combat starts when you roll initiative, and it ends... at some point? But implicitly, it kind of ends with a TPK of one side...

But only as long as 5e is their cash cow. I don't think this means that WotC is firmly pro-open-gaming. They have conceded that they will never be able to achieve whatever goals they had with 5e. We should probably assume that their goals have not changed, but they now know they need a different...

The ORC is being created by some of the same people that created the OGL, so it's likely it will be the spiritual successor to the OGL and serve the same purpose. It will also not be controlled by any of the people ultimately using it. The OGL and the biggest IP released under the OGL being...

This sums up my opinion of a lot of what he says.

If the ORC license works the way the OGL was intended to, it will be a sort of half way point between the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses. The CC-BY license says you may make derivative works, and basically do whatever you like with them. The only real stipulation is that you say what original work...

I'm going to see if any of the 5e refugees want to play Avatar: Legends.

According to what he said on his live stream he's "not paid to care about that" any more.

I thought WotC was dead set on killing the OGL 1.0a. Never in my dreams did I imagine they'd not only back down from everything they were trying, but would capitulate by giving us even more by releasing the SRD under CC-BY. I did suggest releasing the entire SRD under CC-BY, but only to...

We cannot let them deauthorize pancakes!

By releasing your content under the OGL 1.0a, you are agreeing that the licensee may use that content under any authorized version of the OGL. That includes versions of the OGL released after you've published. (edit for clarity)

No, any OGC must be licensed under the OGL. AFAIK, trying to offer OGC under the CC-BY would violate the terms of the OGL.