D&D 5E Creative Commons and D&D

[bedir than]

Supplements are going to be much, much, much easier to release under the cc-by 4.0 than the OGL. I'm excited about that since one reason my Backgrounds project didn't see the light of day is hesitancy to go to DMsGuild and the care needed to avoid non-OGC

 

[Reynard]

Supplements are going to be much, much, much easier to release under the cc-by 4.0 than the OGL. I'm excited about that since one reason my Backgrounds project didn't see the light of day is hesitancy to go to DMsGuild and the care needed to avoid non-OGC

Can you explain why you feel this way. Your source under CC is the same as it would have been under OGL 1.0a, no?

 

[bedir than]

Can you explain why you feel this way. Your source under CC is the same as it would have been under OGL 1.0a, no?

Under the OGL I have to scrub all non-Open Gaming Content and product identity in order to comply with the OGL.

That's no longer necessary.

If I want to make a Background that says "You escaped a Mind Flayer holding pen" that's perfectly allowed under CC-BY 4.0. It is not under OGL 1.0a.

edit: removed a word that could be considered passive-aggressive

 

[overgeeked]

The relevant thread for CC vs OGL discussions.

D&D 5E - Compare and contrast CC and OGL

Do you want to discuss the differences between the Creative Commons and OGL? Here you go.

www.enworld.org

 

[Krachek]

For what I understand.
More or easier third party content.
More or easier clone game using the same core mechanics.
If the follow up is handle properly, the overall public image of DnD will be better.
We can guess that OneDnd will be Include into an update of the SRD and also on CC licence.
I guess I will see a unicorn in park sometime before the end of the year!

 

[Dreamscape]

I expect to see publishers (both 3PPs using the WotC 5.1 SRD and indies producing their own games) to create their own SRDs to release under CC BY 4.0. This gives downstream publishers the option to keep their content closed or CC, whereas an SA licence would require share-alike.

I'm still not clear on some elements.

If I use CC BY 4.0 content in a product, can I then release that product under a different CC licence such as CC BY-SA or CC BY-NC?

What exactly does "indicate if they made modifications to the licensed material" mean? The example given is, "This section is an excerpt of the original." Does one have to do that everywhere there is a modification? That would probably double the word count of most clones, and make them unusable in practice. Or is it sufficient to say, "Chapters 3-6, 8, and 12 use portions of the original text."?

 

[Reynard]

We can guess that OneDnd will be Include into an update of the SRD and also on CC licence.

If this happens I will eat my hat.

 

[overgeeked]

I expect to see publishers (both 3PPs using the WotC 5.1 SRD and indies producing their own games) to create their own SRDs to release under CC BY 4.0. This gives downstream publishers the option to keep their content closed or CC, whereas an SA licence would require share-alike.

I'm still not clear on some elements.

If I use CC BY 4.0 content in a product, can I then release that product under a different CC licence such as CC BY-SA or CC BY-NC?

What exactly does "indicate if they made modifications to the licensed material" mean? The example given is, "This section is an excerpt of the original." Does one have to do that everywhere there is a modification? That would probably double the word count of most clones, and make them unusable in practice. Or is it sufficient to say, "Chapters 3-6, 8, and 12 use portions of the original text."?

There’s a link in the OP a out this. It might not answer all your questions, but it covers some. Especially the adaptation section. Note you don’t have to license your new work under the CC unless you want to, but you still have to attribute the CC.

Recommended practices for attribution - Creative Commons

wiki.creativecommons.org

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If I use CC BY 4.0 content in a product, can I then release that product under a different CC licence such as CC BY-SA or CC BY-NC?

Yes. The content you licensed from WotC would still be available direct from WotC under CC-BY, but whatever content you personally released under CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-NC (or CC-BY-NC-SA) could be used under that license. Exactly how it works for "combined" works I'm not sure, and from what I've been reading there are some questions even in the copyleft community as to whether the different kinds of licenses can play nicely with one another. But I think because CC-BY is less restrictive than any of the other licenses you've mentioned here, it should hold? Probably?

What exactly does "indicate if they made modifications to the licensed material" mean? The example given is, "This section is an excerpt of the original." Does one have to do that everywhere there is a modification? That would probably double the word count of most clones, and make them unusable in practice. Or is it sufficient to say, "Chapters 3-6, 8, and 12 use portions of the original text."?

This one, I have no idea. My suspicion is that it would suffice to have it included in the license portion, which must be included in every work licensed under the Creative Commons. But I don't know enough to answer and haven't seen anything specific on this front.

 

[Alzrius]

Does releasing the 5.1 SRD under CC-BY undermine the Open Gaming movement?

I hate to say it, but I fear that the answer is yes.

I foresee a balkanization coming, where products are released under the OGL, ORC, and CC, and it becomes harder for publishers to reuse each other's content, as products published under one license can't have their material (easily) reused under another.