DDB post from Kyle Brink today:
1. Not revoking 1.0a
2. Releasing entire 5E SRD on creative commons
"This Creative Commons license makes the content freely available for any use. We don't control that license and cannot alter or revoke it. It's open and irrevocable in a way that doesn't require you to take our word for it. And its openness means there's no need for a VTT policy. Placing the SRD under a Creative Commons license is a one-way door. There's no going back."
This is what we wanted and it represents a clear reversal from WOTC along with a mea culpa. Putting the SRD under CC is one heck of a show of good faith. I asked for that in the survey, as presumably others did, but I am surprised they did it.
Going forward IMO WOTC can do what they want with ONE. Obviously I would like that to be open as well, but at the end of the day it is up to them and putting a new game under a closed license does not represent the same sort of break in trust that putting 5E under it would have been.
1. Not revoking 1.0a
2. Releasing entire 5E SRD on creative commons
"This Creative Commons license makes the content freely available for any use. We don't control that license and cannot alter or revoke it. It's open and irrevocable in a way that doesn't require you to take our word for it. And its openness means there's no need for a VTT policy. Placing the SRD under a Creative Commons license is a one-way door. There's no going back."
This is what we wanted and it represents a clear reversal from WOTC along with a mea culpa. Putting the SRD under CC is one heck of a show of good faith. I asked for that in the survey, as presumably others did, but I am surprised they did it.
Going forward IMO WOTC can do what they want with ONE. Obviously I would like that to be open as well, but at the end of the day it is up to them and putting a new game under a closed license does not represent the same sort of break in trust that putting 5E under it would have been.