D&D 5E Creative Commons and D&D

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Balkanization was unavoidable as soon as the ORC was proposed, because not everyone will want to go with it. We were guaranteed to get at least 3, and realistically more like at least 4, distinct camps:

1. Those sticking with WotC and whatever OGL it came up with. Critical Role was probably going to be stuck here, regardless of their feelings on the matter, because they'd already hitched their cart to WotC's horses.
2. Those switching to Paizo's ORC and hoping to create the new community core.
3. Those refusing to participate in any of these licenses and trying to go it alone
4. Those refusing to recognize WotC's "de-authorization" of OGL 1.0a and thus sticking with the old license regardless

And there's room to argue for more too (those using OGL 1.0a without actually using any of WotC's licensed content, those already pushing for a Creative Commons structure e.g. building off of Dungeon World.)

The balkanization was a foregone conclusion the moment WotC announced their desire to alter the OGL, because that was going to incense Paizo and lead to ORC. We may as well celebrate that the core notions of D&D are now indefinitely accessible and thus even if WotC goes belly up, no one can try to vault it or hoard it like a dragon.

 

[Dreamscape]

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.

Yes, I've looked through the CC guides. While images and the like are quite clear, text is a bit more vague in the guidance. The most I can find regarding indicating text modifications is that example, but I would assume something more practical than calling out every instance of copied-and-pasted CC text vs. modified CC text would be allowed within the terms of the licence. Clearly it's not reasonable for (for instance) a novel based on the SRD to have that disclaimer recurring on every page throughout the book.

Regarding onward licencing, I'm wondering more along the lines of creating a product using CC BY 4.0 text and then publishing the whole thing under, e.g., CC BY-SA. Is that possible? I assume so as I haven't found anything saying you can't, but I'm just wondering if there is some more discussion of that somewhere. I have come across various statements that different CC licences are not very/at all compatible, but nothing definitive.

Perhaps it's time to ask the source!

If this happens I will eat my hat.

What kind of hat is it?

 

[Cadence]

Yes, I've looked through the CC guides. While images and the like are quite clear, text is a bit more vague in the guidance. The most I can find regarding indicating text modifications is that example, but I would assume something more practical than calling out every instance of copied-and-pasted CC text vs. modified CC text would be allowed within the terms of the licence. Clearly it's not reasonable for (for instance) a novel based on the SRD to have that disclaimer recurring on every page throughout the book.

You do not have to call it out everywhere.

Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons

creativecommons.org

Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons

creativecommons.org

Recommended practices for attribution - Creative Commons

wiki.creativecommons.org

Regarding onward licencing, I'm wondering more along the lines of creating a product using CC BY 4.0 text and then publishing the whole thing under, e.g., CC BY-SA. Is that possible? I assume so as I haven't found anything saying you can't, but I'm just wondering if there is some more discussion of that somewhere. I have come across various statements that different CC licences are not very/at all compatible, but nothing definitive.

Perhaps it's time to ask the source!


What kind of hat is it?

Scrolling down in the link below to the Adapter's License chart. You can put your work that adapted things from CC-BY under CC-BY-SA. It doesn't have any affect on the original CC-BY things.

Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons

creativecommons.org

 

[overgeeked]

Using the provided example as a template what people would need to do is include this at the front of their work:

“This work, “[New work name]”, is adapted from “[Original work name]” by [original autbor], used under CC BY 4.0.”

Or just follow what’s written in the new SRD and include this at the front of the work:

“This work includes material taken from the System Reference Document 5.1 (“SRD 5.1”) by Wizards of the Coast LLC and available at Systems Reference Document | Dungeons & Dragons. The SRD 5.1 is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.”

That’s it. No need to list product identity or open content. Your stuff stays yours. If you want to release it as CC, you can. If people want to use the CC content from your work, there’s the link to the original source and they’re free to use and adapt that at their whim.

 

[see]

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

I mean, this is pretty much the same issue people on Slashdot were discussing a quarter-century ago. Was the GPL better because it stopped people from taking software in the commons and building proprietary products on it? Or was BSD licensing better because it attracted people who wanted to build proprietary products to use the software in the commons, and thus created a bigger community around that software with network effects that favored the commons-based community over the all-proprietary communities?

There's reasonable arguments on both sides, and the diversity in opinions and licensing has persisted in software to this day.

 

[wingsandsword]

We may as well celebrate that the core notions of D&D are now indefinitely accessible and thus even if WotC goes belly up, no one can try to vault it or hoard it like a dragon.

. . .which was already the state of things before WotC tried this "de-authorization" nonsense a month or so ago.

I'd been saying for 20+ years that thanks to the OGL and SRD's, that even if WotC went out of business and D&D went out of print, that the game itself could survive thanks to the OGL.

Then WotC tries a dubious legal strategy which at least casts doubt on it. Them releasing the 5e core at least into Creative Commons partially undoes the damage they started, but not entirely. . .not the least of which is the huge volume of content released under the OGL that now has the idea that WotC might repeat this stunt one day hanging over its head like a sword of Damocles.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

. . .which was already the state of things before WotC tried this "de-authorization" nonsense a month or so ago.

Firstly: not for dragonborn or tieflings or mindflayers or beholders or.... And that matters. A lot.

Secondly, there has always been legal ambiguity even with the OGL about whether the "expression" of the rules is subject to copyright. E.g. formulae can't be, but can tables? Now, with the whole SRD just straight up released under CC, I can confidently publish, for example, a novel that uses the word "dragonborn" and won't get slapped with a lawsuit from WotC. (Or a friend of mine, who went by the username "temporalMessiah" on a forum of yesteryear, who is thrilled to know that he can now actually use the names of all the various types of demons who are characters in the novel he is actually working on right now.) The CC license allows ALL adaptations, not just game ones, and that's a huge change.

I'd been saying for 20+ years that thanks to the OGL and SRD's, that even if WotC went out of business and D&D went out of print, that the game itself could survive thanks to the OGL.

I consider the Creative Commons to be a superior safe harbor, for a variety of reasons. Not least because it guarantees something like this can't happen again.

Then WotC tries a dubious legal strategy which at least casts doubt on it. Them releasing the 5e core at least into Creative Commons partially undoes the damage they started, but not entirely. . .not the least of which is the huge volume of content released under the OGL that now has the idea that WotC might repeat this stunt one day hanging over its head like a sword of Damocles.

As I have said several times, this applies to stuff going forward, yes. It doesn't help people who already have work under the OGL. I believe their rapid and unequivocal response to the feedback warrants patience and consideration. That doesn't mean giving up the fight--it means giving them a chance to make a case. Because if you look at my posts, you will find that I was not willing to do that before. This gesture, IMHO, is worth leaning back and saying, "Alright. What's your proposal?" If that proposal is $#!t, we recognize it for what it is and respond accordingly. If it isn't, then it's a step in the right direction and not into a cow pie.

 

[Alzrius]

Firstly: not for dragonborn or tieflings or mindflayers or beholders or.... And that matters. A lot.

I'm pretty sure dragonborn and tieflings were already out there.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm pretty sure dragonborn and tieflings were already out there.

The exact nature of what one could do with them was not entirely clear even with that. Again, mechanics vs presentation, when the presentation is rather a large portion of what matters to me. This makes it extremely clear: you can do anything you want as long as you give WotC credit.

And the other parts of the argument remain true (mindflayers being a key example.)

 

[wingsandsword]

Firstly: not for dragonborn or tieflings or mindflayers or beholders or.... And that matters. A lot.

Tieflings were already OGC all the way back to the 3e SRD two decades ago. Dragonborn were added to OGC in the 5e SRD that was released under the OGL years ago.

. . .so those were already open content years before this mess. That wasn't adding anything new.

. . .and while the names "mind flayer" and "beholder" were added to that which was put out in the open through yesterday's CC release, that doesn't mean the entire appearance and description of them from WotC's products was added too, and I'd be careful about just trying to use mind flayers and beholders as-is based on those mentions.