Bob the World Builder Interviews Kyle Brink

[mamba]

Still, there is a constant not-so-subtle slight of OGL 1.0a in all of these interviews as being short and not very useful. It feels like a constant nudge to people to use the CC version. Why?

why would you not use CC today? I see no reason not to, other than the content you derive from being under the OGL only, but that is more an OSR than 5e issue.

He is just acknowledging that the CC is at least as good at doing what the OGL set out to do, and has the benefit of working for those that do not trust WotC / the OGL any more.

 

[mamba]

If that was the case, they could have simply issued a 1.0b and added revokable without redefining the word and ended it there. Instead, they moved to something that is not copyleft and keep quietly pushing it as better while also saying people have choice.

There is something about 1.0a, or perhaps what it has been used for and the 20+ years of OGC commons that they have an issue with.

no, that is just them conceding that 1.0a always was irrevocable, and you have no good reason to trust a 1.0b that spells it out any more than you could / can trust 1.0a - and if either is too little, that is what the CC is for

 

[Pedantic]

That has been a point of frustration for me, in all these interviews. WotC has at no point really acknowledged the space the OGL was filling, functioning as an open license, and no one is really asking it be treated that way. I wanted to hear WotC say something like "we understand the intent was that we couldn't alter this license, just publish new versions, and it it was wrong of us to try," and so on.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

I have not bought the paper version nor the D&D Beyond version of the latest book. I did buy the fantasy grounds version to make sure I had it if they lost access from their license not being renewed.

After listening to answers in this, I have not changed my mind. I appreciate the PR as I think there is sole truth here, but for the most part I have found all the interviews just empty corporate PR.

 

[darjr]

no, that is just them conceding that 1.0a always was irrevocable, and you have no good reason to trust a 1.0b that spells it out any more than you could / can trust 1.0a - and if either is too little, that is what the CC is for

I didn’t hear that at all.

If anything he was conceding that no one would trust WotC even if they made it irrevocable or whatever.

In fact they reinstated it as is!

 

[Burt Baccara]

why would you not use CC today? I see no reason not to, other than the content you derive from being under the OGL only, but that is more an OSR than 5e issue.

He is just acknowledging that the CC is at least as good at doing what the OGL set out to do, and has the benefit of working for those that do not trust WotC / the OGL any more.

The OGL 1.0a and CC are different beasts, they are not the same.

When the 3.5 SRD is released under CC, you will be able to publish content based on this SRD, but not all do the content that was released by 3rd parties into OGC over the last 20+ years. That is a problem.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If that was the case, they could have simply issued a 1.0b and added revokable without redefining the word and ended it there.

There was clearly an internal civil war over this issue. All the evidence suggests that there were people adamantly opposed to the OGL changes and they were overruled from above.

 

[mamba]

If anything he was conceding that no one would trust WotC even if they made it irrevocable or whatever.

that is the same thing

 

[mamba]

The OGL 1.0a and CC are different beasts, they are not the same.

I am aware, but for most uses in 5e it makes no real difference, and that is WotC's focus so far

When the 3.5 SRD is released under CC, you will be able to publish content based on this SRD, but not all do the content that was released by 3rd parties into OGC over the last 20+ years. That is a problem.

which is why I wrote "other than the content you derive from being under the OGL only,". This is not really relevant though, you were wondering about the nudge towards CC, to which I replied to use CC when you can (with this being the exception), if you do not trust WotC. Nothing you wrote here changes anything about that.

 

[Iosue]

The OGL 1.0a and CC are different beasts, they are not the same.

When the 3.5 SRD is released under CC, you will be able to publish content based on this SRD, but not all do the content that was released by 3rd parties into OGC over the last 20+ years. That is a problem.

This was an issue when the OGL was going to be unauthorized. It's not an issue now.

Let's say you want to use OGC for your new product.
You can
A) contact the copyright holder and get their direct permission. What, are they suddenly going to say no to you using their stuff that they wanted to be open?
or
B) if you can't get a hold of them, or for some reason they demand it has to be OGL or nothing, you make your product, you attribute WotC for any SRD content you use off CC (they're the reason you can't trust the OGL, after all), you put your own stuff that you want to share on CC-BY or even CC-BY-SA. And for that OGC you wanted to use OGC, you use the OGL, designating everything not that OGC and not what you want to put out there for use Product Identity. Even in the highly improbable event that WotC decides to somehow try to kill the OGL again, whatever they do means nothing to the sub-license you have for that non-WotC OGC.