D&D (2024) I am so torn [UPDATE: I bought it]

[mamba]

My inability to smolder about something that almost happened 2 years ago but didn’t is the least interesting thing to happen to me today.

good for you. The only reason it didn’t happen is people smoldering back then, so you are welcome

 

[KYRON45]

we owe them nothing either, so we can demand whatever we feel like from them as a condition of continued business… and they might not ‘owe’ us to not violate a contract, but the law has something to say about that too

They didn’t violate anything. I’m saying I don’t get why people are still angry about a decision that never came to pass.

I’m not saying you can’t be angry. I’m saying I don’t understand why you are.

 

[Alzrius]

can you mix them or not? I believe you can, all you need to do is reference the SRD. So who cares whether it is open under the OGL if you can use it in products alongside OGL content

That's extremely presumptive. Even leaving aside that trying to use two different licenses in the same product in a way that doesn't violate the terms of either is a landmine that most publishers won't want to navigate (and the way so many publishers distanced themselves from the OGL even after WotC backed off revoking it should tell you all you need to know about the effectiveness of a chilling effect on the industry's smaller players), where does one license end and another begin when you're mixing them?

Like, a beholder is open under the CC, but not under the OGL. So if I make a Pathfinder 1E product with a PF1 beholder, can I say that the name is covered under the CC license but not the OGL license, and the stats are open under the OGL but not the CC? What about the special abilities listings, which are clearly in reference to their CC counterparts but are slightly different in mechanics/wording, and which I've now declared Open Game Content?

The entire thing might be navigable, but it puts a great deal of burdensome doubt and uncertainty on the part of the smaller publishers. If WotC really wants to mend bridges with the community, why not re-release CC-specific material under the OGL? They're not losing anything, since the material is already available under the CC, and the community can then use it with a lot less uncertainty. Everyone wins.

 

[KYRON45]

good for you. The only reason it didn’t happen is people smoldering back then, so you are welcome

I wasn’t affected by any of this so I’m not sure what I should be welcome for.

 

[John Lloyd1]

I'm not sure what you're asking. Is there something that stops you from releasing content you don't own (i.e. a 5E 2024 SRD that's only released under Creative Commons) as Open Game Content under the OGL? Yes: that it's not yours to release.

For example, Black Flag uses the 5.1 SRD using the CC attribution licence and licences Black Flag under the ORC licence.

I assume Kobold Press could licence Black Flag using OGL if they wanted to. I can't see what is stopping the mixing of the licences as long as all the requirements of the licences were met.

 

[Alzrius]

For example, Black Flag uses the 5.1 SRD using the CC attribution licence and licences Black Flag under the ORC licence.

I assume Kobold Press could licence Black Flag using OGL if they wanted to. I can't see what is stopping the mixing of the licences as long as all the requirements of the licences were met.

See above; at best, that's burdensome to the publishers, and at worst it's a legal landmine. Most publishers aren't going to want to walk the tightrope of using multiple licenses at once, which disincentivizes doing so.

Again, if WotC has already released material under one license, why not release the same material under another license? What's the reason for not doing so? If they make a 5E 2024 SRD and release it under the CC, what's their impetus not to also post it under the OGL?

So far no one has been able to answer that question.

 

[John Lloyd1]

See above; at best, that's burdensome to the publishers, and at worst it's a legal landmine. Most publishers aren't going to want to walk the tightrope of using multiple licenses at once, which disincentivizes doing so.

Again, if WotC has already released material under one license, why not release the same material under another license? What's the reason for not doing so? If they make a 5E 2024 SRD and release it under the CC, what's their impetus not to also post it under the OGL?

So far no one has been able to answer that question.

It doesn't seem to that hard as non-lawyer, but you would need to understand multiple licences and where you were tracing your rights. I assume you are lawyer.

 

[mamba]

They didn’t violate anything.

the contract they wanted to revoke, remember that one? That they ultimately did not is not to their credit, they had to be strong-armed into doing the right thing

 

[Alzrius]

It doesn't seem to that hard as non-lawyer, but you would need to understand multiple licences and where you were tracing your rights. I assume you are lawyer.

I'm not a lawyer, no. Which is kind of the point; most publishers aren't, and retaining one to look over two different licenses just to make sure they're not in conflict seems like an undue burden.

Again, why shouldn't WotC release material that's already open under one license under another license?

 

[mamba]

where does one license end and another begin when you're mixing them?

does it even matter if you can mix them?

which I've now declared Open Game Content?

you have not declared anything open content, you used existing content. You can only declare your own content open

Also, how does them releasing 3e under the CC help, do you expect everyone to switch over?

why not re-release CC-specific material under the OGL?

there is no such material yet, we will see what they do with 2024

Given their past actions, I am not sure many would use the OGL if they can use the CC however