D&D General Interview with Chris Cocks on D&D AI, the OGL, and more

[Alzrius]

no it isn’t, I supported my claim with the two links, you showed zero support for your claim

You tried to "support" your claim that the CC-BY-4.0 is "more open" than the OGL by linking to two pages that don't talk about the OGL, and were called out as to that being a fallacy. So no, you supported nothing.

In a debate you get an F and I get a D, but then I do not really see that more effort on my part is warranted given your poor performance

And I think it's nice that you've assigned yourself the "winner" of this debate, but I do agree it's time for you to stop talking about this. Again.

 

[Mistwell]

I'll point out here that you've very conveniently omitted the most salient detail that I pointed out before, which is that neither of those pages talk at all about the Open Game License, let alone contrast it to the CC. Given that the point in contention was that the CC-BY-4.0 is "more open" than the OGL, citing pages that don't talk about the OGL at all to support that point can rightfully be dismissed as fallacies because they're not authorities where the OGL is concerned.

Don't mic drop me man, or accuse me with that "conveniently leaving out" gamesmanship nonsense. This isn't a game you're trying to win. It's a conversation between adults.

If you're arguing they are not experts in the topic, OK, make that argument. That's not the argument you made that I was responding to. You made an argument that "Appeal to Authority" meant "where you cite someone else's opinion and claim that it is somehow the last word on a topic". I responded to that, explaining how that's not what that fallacy means. And I made it clear I have no dog in your fight about which is "more open" so that's irrelevant.

 

[Alzrius]

Don't mic drop me man, or accuse me with that "conveniently leaving out" gamesmanship nonsense. This isn't a game you're trying to win. It's a conversation between adults.

You'll forgive me my cynicism; the lack of notation regarding the OGL on those pages, despite it being central to the topic, struck me as an omission that was hard to make on accident. My bad if I misread you.

If you're arguing they are not experts in the topic, OK, make that argument. That's not the argument you made however, nor the one I responded to. Instead you made an argument that "Appeal to Authority" meant any use of an authority for support is a fallacy. I responded to that. And I made it clear I have no dog in your fight about which is "more open" so that's irrelevant.

I'll point out that I did grant the premise that's not a fallacy if an actual expert is being cited (in the post right before your own); I just pointed out that this was not the case here, since neither of those webpages connote any expertise (or even knowledge) where the OGL is concerned, and so the charge of them being fallaciously cited as authorities in that regard is entirely warranted.

 

[Mistwell]

You'll forgive me my cynicism; the lack of notation regarding the OGL on those pages, despite it being central to the topic, struck me as an omission that was hard to make on accident. My bad if I misread you.

I'll point out that I did grant the premise that's not a fallacy if an actual expert is being cited (in the post right before your own); I just pointed out that this was not the case here, since neither of those webpages connote any expertise (or even knowledge) where the OGL is concerned, and so the charge of them being fallaciously cited as authorities in that regard is entirely warranted.

You didn't make that argument in the post I was quoting and responding to. A simple, "You're right, I mention that here" would have sufficed better than the neener neener you responded with. But I'm glad to see you did clarify, and sorry I missed that later in the thread. I have a bad habit of clicking reply to posts as I see them rather than reading the entire thread.

 

[Alzrius]

You didn't make that argument in the post I was quoting and responding to. A simple, "You're right, I mention that here" would have sufficed better than the neener neener you responded with.

I was working under the idea that it was standard practice, before responding to a post, to glance ahead and see if it was talked about in a subsequent post (assuming the thread isn't monstrously huge).

But I'm glad to see you did clarify, and sorry I missed that later in the thread. I have a bad habit of clicking reply to posts as I see them rather than reading the entire thread.

Thank you for that. Likewise, I apologize for the aggressive response; I shouldn't have presumed that you were another troll.

 

[mamba]

And I think it's nice that you've assigned yourself the "winner" of this debate, but I do agree it's time for you to stop talking about this. Again.

you make it sound like you think you won when all you did is run out my interest in convincing you.

Since there really is nothing in it for me, the amount of effort I am willing to spend on educating you is rather limited. If you want to remain willfully ignorant, I am not going to try and fix that

 

[Alzrius]

EDIT: Nevermind, not worth it.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

"Open" is not a legal term, it's a matter of opinion. You'll get very different answers about what's more "open" if you ask Sam Altman or Richard Stallman.

 

[Staffan]

If WOTC had released it under a Share Alike license, they could have held back their own stuff from the SRD but force every downstream publisher to release everything under a share-alike license which would mean WOTC could use anything you created under that license but could hold their own stuff back by not putting it in a system reference document. It would have been unlikely they would have brought in stuff from downstream producers but I guarantee many people would have been suspicious of them.

I'm much happier that it's out under a CC BY 4.0 license as I'm happy that Russ put out the A5e SRD under the same license. It is much friendlier to downstream producers.

So, how often did Wizards of the Coast incorporate OGL material created by others in their own publications during the 3.0/3.5 era? I know of two instances: Monster Manual II included two monsters from OGL sources (Creature Catalog, IIRC), and Unearthed Arcana included a small number of mechanics as well.

The thing is that while CC-BY is friendlier to the first downstream producer, it doesn't really generate an ecosystem. When Necromancer/Frog God releases monsters in Tome of Horrors, Paizo can then include those monsters in their adventure paths. This is, to me, one of the strongest things about the OGL, and CC-BY doesn't do that. It only lets people create things based on the primary source (the SRD).

How? You can't amend the OGL. What would you suggest be done to return it to what it was before they said what they think they could have done all along with it? A new one with different language does zero for all the stuff that came before so that doesn't restore the prior status quo.

You can release new versions of the OGL. It's just that people can use material released for any version of the OGL along with any other version of the OGL – essentially meaning you can never make it less permissive.

 

[mamba]

The thing is that while CC-BY is friendlier to the first downstream producer, it doesn't really generate an ecosystem. When Necromancer/Frog God releases monsters in Tome of Horrors, Paizo can then include those monsters in their adventure paths. This is, to me, one of the strongest things about the OGL, and CC-BY doesn't do that. It only lets people create things based on the primary source (the SRD).

agreed, the two have different goals. WotC wants an ecosystem prepping up D&D, they are not trying to create the TTRPG equivalent to Linux.

The license they used reflects that and is more beneficial for professional 3pps (ie ones that want to make money from their product) while the CC-SA or ORC are more suitable for a hobbyist community that is ok with sharing equally.

Different goals, different license. We will see how they both fare