Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9552010" data-attributes="member: 8461">Since you mentioned the OGL debacle, I'll go ahead and mention this:It would take WotC no time or effort whatsoever to release an OGL v1.0b which added the word &quot;irrevocable&quot; and was released into the public domain, just like Paizo's ORC license was. And yet they don't seem to want to so much as consider doing any such thing.Heck, there's no indication that they plan on releasing the (supposedly) forthcoming 2024 SRD under the OGL. And while people say &quot;that would be redundant, and ergo pointless&quot; I disagree. If anyone out there wants to back-convert the 2024 materials to an OGL system (and yes, there are products out there which do this for extant 5E OGL materials), then you need them under the OGL.Is that a niche case? Absolutely. But niche cases are the hallmark of the proverbial &quot;little guy,&quot; the small-press third-party publishers contributing to an OGL ecosystem which now has nearly a quarter-century's worth of additions that anyone can use.And yet WotC continues to turn their nose up at this ecosystem. Even the allowance of other publishers to use D&amp;D Beyond, and the DMs Guild, are all under WotC's control, ready for them to veto them once they find them inconvenient. Their license to let other VTTs use 5E 2024 will last as long as WotC wants it to last, and no longer; I've seen plenty of people say &quot;well, that's normal for licenses,&quot; and indeed it is; but the OGL paradigm set a standard that greater because it freely gave to the community.If WotC isn't interested that standard, then are they really interested in the community as anything other than (to quote from one notable leak during the OGL debacle), &quot;obstacles between them and their money&quot;?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 9552010, member: 8461"] Since you mentioned the OGL debacle, I'll go ahead and mention this: It would take WotC no time or effort whatsoever to release an OGL v1.0b which added the word "irrevocable" and was released into the public domain, just like Paizo's ORC license was. And yet they don't seem to want to so much as consider doing any such thing. Heck, there's no indication that they plan on releasing the (supposedly) forthcoming 2024 SRD under the OGL. And while people say "that would be redundant, and ergo pointless" I disagree. If anyone out there wants to back-convert the 2024 materials to an OGL system (and yes, there are products out there which do this for extant 5E OGL materials), then you need them under the OGL. Is that a niche case? Absolutely. But niche cases are the hallmark of the proverbial "little guy," the small-press third-party publishers contributing to an OGL ecosystem which now has nearly a quarter-century's worth of additions that anyone can use. And yet WotC continues to turn their nose up at this ecosystem. Even the allowance of other publishers to use D&D Beyond, and the DMs Guild, are all under WotC's control, ready for them to veto them once they find them inconvenient. Their license to let other VTTs use 5E 2024 will last as long as WotC wants it to last, and no longer; I've seen plenty of people say "well, that's normal for licenses," and indeed it is; but the OGL paradigm set a standard that [B]greater [/B]because it freely gave to the community. If WotC isn't interested that standard, then are they really interested in the community as anything other than (to quote from one notable leak during the OGL debacle), "obstacles between them and their money"? [/QUOTE]

Verification