OK, so what does a D&D creator do now?
- Thread starter darjr
- Start date
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
All of the content released via OGL 1.0a has a license allowing anyone to use it at the front of the product.
darjr
I crit!
Yea but can I use that with the cc srd 5.1 content? Would I want to?
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I don't know if you'd want to, but if you can use them both and neither one says you can't use anything else, then you can mix them. You'd just need to put all of the proper notices at the front.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
I think in order to use anything that is OGC, you need to use the OGL to keep the chain going: it's material released under the OGL, not CC. Someone wanting to make a 5E clone or Adventure can use CC without referencing anything outside of the SRD, which I'm sure plenty will.
Importantly, using the OGL now is safer than it was for the past 20 years, because of the CC release: WotC lacks the ability to benefit anymore by messing with the OGL due tot he CC drop, so the safe haven is even safer.
darjr
I crit!
@Parmandur I didn’t even think if that
Parmandur
Book-Friend
@darjr repost of my thoughts on the situation from another thread, but basically building s business sround OGL is now rock solid, because Hasbro has nothing to gain:
So, the thing to take away from all this is that there are factions within Hasbro/WotC, which we can probably theoretically generalize as Pro-Open Gaming (OG), Anti-OG, and OG-Neutral. The Anti-OG faction just made their bid, probavly with the OG-Neutral nodding their heads that the restrictions seemed reasonable (we saw this play out out here I'm the Fandom, even). The Anti-OG crowed internally laot so hard that the OG-Neutral appear to have gone over entirely to the Pro-OG side.
If you game out the situation now is that...WotC or Hasbro can never again build an internal business case for going against the OGL, ever, under any administration. The three main sticking points listed in the survey were probably the real reasons that the internal Anti-OG team were using: NFTs and such, objectionable content getting too close to the Brand, and Pathfinder 5E rising. Now, those fears can never be avoided by any action. You can go mint Nazi D&D Erotic NFTs under Crestive Commons in perpetuity, and anyone can make Pathfinder 5E under Creative Commons (Raise the Black Flag, C7d20? They can be CC, forever). There is no business incentive to ever change the OGL, because it will always have to compete with the Crearive Commons. This is total victory for the OGL ecosystem, it removed any business interest to rock the boat.
What I suspect we will see next? A new d20 STL, with access to the Beyond marketplace. Gives then their trademark brand controls.
Well, it further incentivizes them to make OneD&D the actual 5E Pathfinder: the light update that incorporates popular changes without invalidating older material. So that nobody can compete on that score.
Their real money was always going to be merchandising and services like Beyond. Doubt that will change now that the grownups won.
So, the thing to take away from all this is that there are factions within Hasbro/WotC, which we can probably theoretically generalize as Pro-Open Gaming (OG), Anti-OG, and OG-Neutral. The Anti-OG faction just made their bid, probavly with the OG-Neutral nodding their heads that the restrictions seemed reasonable (we saw this play out out here I'm the Fandom, even). The Anti-OG crowed internally laot so hard that the OG-Neutral appear to have gone over entirely to the Pro-OG side.
If you game out the situation now is that...WotC or Hasbro can never again build an internal business case for going against the OGL, ever, under any administration. The three main sticking points listed in the survey were probably the real reasons that the internal Anti-OG team were using: NFTs and such, objectionable content getting too close to the Brand, and Pathfinder 5E rising. Now, those fears can never be avoided by any action. You can go mint Nazi D&D Erotic NFTs under Crestive Commons in perpetuity, and anyone can make Pathfinder 5E under Creative Commons (Raise the Black Flag, C7d20? They can be CC, forever). There is no business incentive to ever change the OGL, because it will always have to compete with the Crearive Commons. This is total victory for the OGL ecosystem, it removed any business interest to rock the boat.
What I suspect we will see next? A new d20 STL, with access to the Beyond marketplace. Gives then their trademark brand controls.
Well, it further incentivizes them to make OneD&D the actual 5E Pathfinder: the light update that incorporates popular changes without invalidating older material. So that nobody can compete on that score.
Their real money was always going to be merchandising and services like Beyond. Doubt that will change now that the grownups won.
Enrahim2
Adventurer
I think using OGL1.0a is likely going to be quite fine, and still by far the most convinient way of releasing material for D&D going forward. There are a couple of new considerations to make though:
1) Ideological. There is likely to be a period of tension between ORC and OGL as competing licenses. If ORC is good think the community as a whole will be better of if ORC come out as the dominating license. (One could even dream that eventually wizards might then consider releasing something under ORC to gain more benefit from that community). Each new OGL release is affecting this balance.
2) The landscape might change. OGL1.0a is quite safe for now, because wizards do not have any reason to do anything about it. But this might change. If someone make an OGL product that turn so successfull that it threatens any of wizards products, or if someone abuses OGL (again) to make something wizards really dont want to be associated with, that could again bring the calculus into the danger zone. I find this unlikely, but if you are planning significant investments this might still not be a risk worthwhile to take. Pivoting to CC later might be an option, but not a convinient and possibly costy one.
1) Ideological. There is likely to be a period of tension between ORC and OGL as competing licenses. If ORC is good think the community as a whole will be better of if ORC come out as the dominating license. (One could even dream that eventually wizards might then consider releasing something under ORC to gain more benefit from that community). Each new OGL release is affecting this balance.
2) The landscape might change. OGL1.0a is quite safe for now, because wizards do not have any reason to do anything about it. But this might change. If someone make an OGL product that turn so successfull that it threatens any of wizards products, or if someone abuses OGL (again) to make something wizards really dont want to be associated with, that could again bring the calculus into the danger zone. I find this unlikely, but if you are planning significant investments this might still not be a risk worthwhile to take. Pivoting to CC later might be an option, but not a convinient and possibly costy one.
By content 'outside the SRD 5.1' do you mean from other SRDs? Or just generally?
There are several WotC SRDs released under the OGL (3.5, d20M, 5E). At present only one under CC (5E).
Matt Thomason
Adventurer
So, it's important to bear in mind there are two parts to a license. It's also important to bear in mind that I am not a legal expert, just someone thats worked with licensing for 23+ years and picked up stuff along the way. Oh, and I'll also point out that once ORC material becomes available, you can substitute ORC for "OGL 1.0(a)" in any of the below explainations.
There's the "export" end of the license, which grants permission for the content under that license, and the "import" end that you use in order to get that permission.
Traditionally, a license would grant the 2nd party the rights to content produced by the 1st party, and that's it. That's how licenses like CC-BY and the proposed OGL 1.2 work.
Then we have so-called "viral" licenses, which not only do the above, but also pass the right to use content on to the next user by requiring that any work produced using the "import" end also include a new copy of the "export" end.. That's things like the real OGL 1.0(a), and the CC-BY-SA license.
SRD 5.1 is available to use under both CC-BY (specifically, CC-BY-4.0) and OGL 1.0(a)
If you use SRD 5.1 under CC-BY, you get substantally more rights, because there are no exclusionary clauses. You can use anything in that material, in return for an attribution in your work. This will not confer any rights on users of your work to anything, although they can always use SRD 5.1 themselves by using their own CC-BY license from WotC. It does not make your work CC-BY as well, it confers no reuse rights on others. If you can find any other material out there that is available under CC-BY, you can also use that by adding the additional attribution. An important note here is that you do not reproduce the CC-BY license in your work, you only put the attribution in. Otherwise you're creating a brand new CC-BY license others can use too (and see below as to why you probably don't want to, and potentially cannot legally, do that)
If you use SRD 5.1 under OGL 1.0(a), you cannot use anything declared "Product Identity" in the SRD. As OGL 1.0(a) is a viral license, you also have to use OGL 1.0(a) for your own work, but it is up to you how much of your work you declare "Open Game Content" (you can technically declare nothing Open Game Content other than material that came from the SRD, but that will get frowned upon because you're happily using other peoples content without donating any of your own.) Every source you use, you must copy the entire Section 15 from that source into your work (even if you don't think you used anything from the other works mentioned in there, because chances are you have without realizing it and because thats a requirement of the license.)
Finally, there's the option of using both. You can use SRD 5.1 under CC-BY through placing the correct attribution, in addition to using OGL 1.0(a) to pull in work from other sources that are only licensed under that. Once you've done that, you declare open game content in your work, which others can then use through OGL 1.0(a).
You'll note that with CC-BY not being a viral license, none of the above examples included you making your work available under CC-BY. If you want to do that, things get a little more complicated. Firstly, you have to own copyright to everything in that work in order to CC-BY it (or have permission from all other copyright owners to make their work available under CC-BY - if the contribution itself is CC-BY, such as SRD 5.1, then the CC FAQ states you can do it, and how to). I'm assuming there may be artwork in that work you also do not own the copyright to, but only a license to use. If you're making this content commercially, you've also just given every buyer the right to send copies of the entire thing to anyone they want (but hey, if you want that, and have determined that you legally can do that, go for it
)Assuming a commercial work including things such as artwork you don't own the copyright to and some text that you don't want to give away for reuse, at this point you need to do exactly what WotC did in creating the SRD from the PHB/MM/DMG - you create a seperate document that only contains the parts of the work you own the copyright to (or have permission to include in a CC-BY licensed offer, such as SRD 5.1 and other CC-BY offerings ) and wish others to have permission to reuse (with attribution), and attach a CC-BY license to that document. For example, you might remove anything related to a fictional setting you've created and just leave the monsters, character classes, spells, or whatever. What you leave in there is totally up to you.
You can then put that shiny CC-BY-licensed document on your website, bundle it in with your book on DTRPG, or distribute by any other manner you see fit.
(edited with corrections about using CC-BY on your own work if you included CC-BY material)
Last edited:
You'll note that with CC-BY not being a viral license, there is no instance of the above where you make your work available under CC-BY. If you want to do that, things get a little more complicated. You can't simply slap a CC-BY on your work, because you have to own copyright to everything in that work in order to CC-BY it (or have permission from all other copyright owners to make their work available under CC-BY). You do not own copyright on anything that came from the SRD*, and I'm assuming there may be artwork in that work you also do not own the copyright to, but only a license to use. If you're making this content commercially, you've also just given every buyer the right to send copies of the entire thing to anyone they want (but hey, if you want that, and have determined that you legally can do that, go for it
You can then put that shiny CC-BY-licensed document on your website, bundle it in with your book on DTRPG, or distribute by any other manner you see fit.
* - So, there's a possible argument that WotC implicitly grant permission to add their content to your CC-BY license by making their content CC-BY in the first place. I would not want to rely on that argument without proper legal advice confirming it. Personally, I believe that breaks both the letter and the spirit of CC-BY because their attribution would be replaced by yours, and there is no mechanism in the license where you concatenate the attributions together as with OGL Section 15.
If feels like more than a "possible" argument. Doesn't the CC FAQ explanation say one can put their new work adapted from others CC-BY material under CC-BY if they want as long as they give the proper attributions? That is, that WotC putting the SRD 5.1 under CC-BY instead of, say CC-ND, explicitly gives permission for future users to use it in their own CC-BY adaptations of 5.1 if they want to (and give several other choices instead of CC-BY too, including just having it under copyright).
Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons
creativecommons.org
Last edited:
Matt Thomason
Adventurer
Ooo, interesting, I'll edit that post!If feels like more than a "possible" argument. Doesn't the CC FAQ explanation say one can put their new work adapted from others CC-BY material under CC-BY if they want as long as they give the proper attributions? That is, that WotC putting the SRD 5.1 under CC-BY instead of, say CC-ND, explicitly gives permission for future users to use it in their own CC-BY adaptations of 5.1 if they want to (and give several other choices instead of CC-BY too, including just having it under copyright).
Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons
darjr
I crit!
Yes, other “open game content”
The OGL gives you access to all OGC. It doesn’t care where it came from. 5E, 3.5, Pathfinder, Fate, a billion 3PP books. You can use, mix, modify, and distribute any of it as long as you follow the terms of the license.
darjr
I crit!
Would you mix OGL with the SRD 5.1 via the CC?
I’m not sure what that means?
Carlsen Chris
Explorer
Write Pathfinder material.
It feels like there is nothing that lets material (that isn't 100% yours) be freed from OGL, such as being placed under CC-BY without also being under OGL.
Similar Threads
