Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9552443" data-attributes="member: 8461">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 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect" target="_blank">chilling effect</a> 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.</blockquote>

Verification