No. I said between CC AND the existing licenses in the 3PP products already created for 5e... Why are you leaving out half of what I said?
I'm not sure I understand why the CC-BY is relevant. It gives you no ability to take something of someone else's under 1.0a and shift it to CC-BY.
Yes and no. It continues on in the 3PP already created. Part of the contractual requirements for creating that 3PP product in the first place was allowing others to perpetually use the OGC in it. One side of a contract can't unilaterally alter the terms.
It's relevant because most 3PP don't use the vast majority of what is in SRD 5.1 and I'm assuming that to take only the OGC(PI needs permission from the author or his heirs) wouldn't leave you enough to produce much of a product, so you'd need to borrow from both sources to make a coherent product.
To which I answered
To which you disagreed, and we've been disagreeing ever since.
I think what Maxperson is getting at is, assuming that WotC’s putative ability to “de-authorize” is actually taken as an ability to rescind their offer to license (and subsequently allow sublicenses of) their SRDs, it does not appear clear that they have the ability to prevent creators who have already offered their own content to be licensed under the OGL’s terms.
Why wouldn't CC, which is also a license no single company can unilaterally redact or alter, serve that same function but already exists in a great court-tested format?
And I think @Maxperson agreed they should keep slapping the 1.0a document in the back if there was anyone in the IP chain that hadn't given some other permission.
Produced. As in original. Not reproduced or derived from. I even clarified that multiple times in later posts.
And they can't even really claim infringement now(at least not with things allowed by OGL 1.0a) since SRD 5.1 is open content in CC, so even if they do deauthorize the OGL 1.0a, that wouldn't really change anything now. There's no real point to doing that any longer.
Yep. You can actually do a bit more with the CC-BY-4.0 than you could with OGL 1.0a.
Dustin_00's reply addresses the intended benefit of ORC over OGL 1.0a. Listing the benefits of ORC over CC would likely look very different, but if we assume it in effect try to do the same things as OGL1.0a it would include things like:
If you want to "produce something for 5ed" that is neither reproducing nor deriving anything, then you wouldn't need any license at all? Noone is preventing you from publishing fully original work, and including the notice "This is intended for use with 5e" or similar. No need for any CC for that..
I am talking about ALL open content provided by third parties independent of any Wizard's authored SRD since the year 2000. You in contrast are focused on 5e oriented content. There are 23 years worth of creative content where the author only permitted reuse under the OGL 1.0a. That why a OGL 1.0b is important.
What would be the point of WotC stopping OGL 1.0a now? 5e and beyond are the only things that are relevant to WotC. That's where the lion's share of the money is. They aren't going to revoke OGL 1.0a now since it wouldn't do anything to 5e 3PP content. The older stuff is going to be fine.
Your phrasing here is quite difficult to understand - "reproduced or derived from" would include making something based just on the SRD just as much as something that also includes content based on 3rd party material. "Originally" would only apply if you're not using any source, and are making a whole new game from scratch. You're somehow treating the SRD as if it's any different to any other Open Game Content under the OGL. It's all just text sources you're allowed to draw from.
