D&D 5E Creative Commons and D&D

[Reynard]

That appears to be possible, yes.

Where you would run into problems is if you wanted to keep some of your book closed, or allow downstream licensors to do the same. There we hit the issue of CC not having a concept of "Product Identity" and "Open (Game) Content". It looks potentially doable, but not as easily and definitively as it is with the OGL that includes specific mechanisms to do that.

Yeah, that PI thing seems to be the primary benefit of an OGL/ORC -- along with it being a brand unto itself, of course.

 

[jmhimara]

One advantage of the OGL over the CC licenses is that it's familiar to the people in the industry. People learned how to use it and trusted the process that it involved. Sure, CC is also easy, but it is unfamiliar to many, and that can be a huge disadvantage. If the ORC is similar to the OGL in that regard, it may carry on that advantage.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

There seems to be some confusion around the term "using CC" in this discussion, it seems like people are using it to mean different things.

"Using CC" either means "including content from the 5.1 SRD that was released under CC-BY 4.0 in your product", or "releasing your product under a Creative Commons license". There might be some other variations I've missed too.

Now that I've written this post I'm not sure if it's useful or just adding further to the confusion.

 

[overgeeked]

There seems to be some confusion around the term "using CC" in this discussion, it seems like people are using it to mean different things.

"Using CC" either means "including content from the 5.1 SRD that was released under CC-BY 4.0 in your product", or "releasing your product under a Creative Commons license". There might be some other variations I've missed too.

Now that I've written this post I'm not sure if it's useful or just adding further to the confusion.

It’s useful.

People are used to how the OGL works so keep thinking in those terms and it’s hard to stop. CC-BY isn’t the OGL and doesn’t work the same way. The distinction you call out does exist in the CC-BY license although it does not in the OGL.

This is the viral aspect. The OGL has it, CC-BY does not. To use the CC-BY content in no way requires releasing your new stuff under the same CC-BY license.

 

[bedir than]

Would it be reasonable to have chapter and/or subchapter labels of their CC status?

Backgrounds (including content from the 5.1 SRD that was released under CC-BY 4.0 by Wizards of the Coast; CC-BY SA 4.0 from [my company] and non-CC content. Each are noted as appropriate.)

• Acolyte (5.1SRD, CC-BY 4.0)
• Farmer (CC-BY SA 4.0, [my company}
• Glight's Teacher (all rights reserved)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Would it be reasonable to have chapter and/or subchapter labels of their CC status?

Backgrounds (including content from the 5.1 SRD that was released under CC-BY 4.0 by Wizards of the Coast; CC-BY SA 4.0 from [my company] and non-CC content. Each are noted as appropriate.)

• Acolyte (5.1SRD, CC-BY 4.0)
• Farmer (CC-BY SA 4.0, [my company}
• Glight's Teacher (all rights reserved)

Honestly, with backgrounds at least, I don't really see much point in reprinting the existing ones. Feats, classes, spells, and races/species, on the other hand, are something I can definitely see wanting to reprint more or less as-is, or with only relatively minor changes.

Backgrounds are so flimsy and ephemeral, you may as well write your own. Most 5e DMs will ignore or invalidate them either way, may as well do something creative.

 

[Enrahim2]

Yeah, that PI thing seems to be the primary benefit of an OGL/ORC -- along with it being a brand unto itself, of course.

I think another thing OGL/ORC provide that CC doesn't is a very easy to use template for how to attribute work from multiple sources. I think there will be at least a period with a lot of confusion among anyone trying to use the CC version of the 5.1SRD regarding how to provide proper attribution - and this will get significantly worse for the first wave of products trying to combine content from the 5.1 srd with third party content attributing 5.1SRD while releasing their own (derivative) work using CC.

 

[bedir than]

Honestly, with backgrounds at least, I don't really see much point in reprinting the existing ones. Feats, classes, spells, and races/species, on the other hand, are something I can definitely see wanting to reprint more or less as-is, or with only relatively minor changes.

Backgrounds are so flimsy and ephemeral, you may as well write your own. Most 5e DMs will ignore or invalidate them either way, may as well do something creative.

The point wasn't Backgrounds but an example of three different rights

 

[bedir than]

Would it be reasonable to have chapter and/or subchapter labels of their CC status?

Backgrounds (including content from the 5.1 SRD that was released under CC-BY 4.0 by Wizards of the Coast; CC-BY SA 4.0 from [my company] and non-CC content. Each are noted as appropriate.)

• Acolyte (5.1SRD, CC-BY 4.0)
• Farmer (CC-BY SA 4.0, [my company}
• Glight's Teacher (all rights reserved)

Another solution, possibly causing a layout specialist to hate me would be to list appropriate rights on each page

 

[dmhelp]

So a big difference between using OGL SRD and CC SRD would be:
1. When writing an OGL supplement you could not reference D&D or the Player's Handbook.
2. When writing a CC supplement you can reference that it is compatible with D&D and you could potentially reference looking something up in the PHB. Maybe even with page numbers? Due to fair use?

Is that correct?