The rest of my post you quoted (but didn't actually quote) pretty much summed it up. I am not sure what more information you are looking for.
We Still Need ORC
Parmandur
Book-Friend
The OGL is completely safe now, because WotC only cares about 5E and selling their own books. Which are now based in the .ore open CC, amd potentially ORC in the future. If they put out oldeEditions under CC and ORC, all the better.
You keep saying that as if it were enough for someone to bet their life savings or a second mortgage on their home for.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
it is in the creative commons, how much more safe can it be?
I'm not sure how many times I can say it: CC does not do what the OGL was meant to do. First of all, only the 5E SRD is under CC. Second of all CC does not create a pool of open content by default the way the OGL did. It is good if all you want to do is put out your book of monsters or and adventure or whatever. it doesn't preserve or support the Open Gaming community or movement.
This is actually getting really frustrating. People that say "they put the 5E SRD under creative commons; everything is fine!" obviously do not see any actual value in Open Gaming. The only value they see is them getting more stuff for their 5E game. They are not thinking about creators or community or the future and extents of the hobby and industry. Which is fine. You are allowed to just want the stuff you want. But don't act like other people are being unreasonable for calling your, or WotC, out. And certainly don't act like the OGL is suddenly not a problem because "obviously" WotC or Hasbro would never try such a thing again.
dave2008
Legend
First, thank you for clarifying.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, what if they deliver on releasing SRDs of 3e/3.5e to CC and potentially ORC? I mean, the proof is in the action, but what they are saying they will do is more than they have done so far. Even if future WotC "deauthorizes" the OGL, they can't take away the work that was produced under if before (not that they even can deauthorize the OGL IMO) and everything is in some type of open license to be used.
Personally I think that is an improvement. If you want your derivative work to be open, you put it in CC. I never liked the requirement aspect (and apparently neither did a lot of 3PP as a lot of stuff as identified as PI). It sill makes D&D open, share-a-like is not not the only definition of open.
The current situation does absolutely fix some things, a lot of things actually. To propose otherwise suggest quite a bias IMO. However, it doesn't fix everything. I think very few people thing that.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, what if they deliver on releasing SRDs of 3e/3.5e to CC and potentially ORC? I mean, the proof is in the action, but what they are saying they will do is more than they have done so far. Even if future WotC "deauthorizes" the OGL, they can't take away the work that was produced under if before (not that they even can deauthorize the OGL IMO) and everything is in some type of open license to be used.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
I wouldn't recommend that anyone bet their life savings or take out a mortgage to back a TTRPG publication, under any conditions whatsoever.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Well, yes, the main benefit of the "Open Gaming" community is getting me more stuff for D&D: that was Ryan Dancey's explicit goal with creating it!
As it stands now, WotC has no business interest in the OGL, because they released the game under a more open license. They have no motive to make any changes. And as it stands, they're committed to releasing other editions under CC and are looking into ORC to release material too. Sounds like a win for "Open Gaming."
Bacon Bits
Hero
I think that's true, but I also think that different people get different value out of the OGL.
Like one of the major reasons the community wanted the OGL was so that they could homebrew for it, publish it online casually, and not get a C&D from TSR's lawyers. Or so they could do play by newsgroup or forum without getting C&D letter from TSR. Or so they could talk about the game without getting C&D letters from TSR. And they didn't want to see AD&D's product lines and content split up and doled out piecemeal to the highest bidder when TSR alienated every last customer they had. To a substantial portion of AD&D players, the OGL was WotC's promise that even if someone with money got ahold of D&D, the game of D&D wouldn't die. Because while the game is not the rules, the game needs the rules to have that common history to the hobby. They wanted D&D as a hobby enshrined, even when the corporate D&D as an off-the-shelf commodity product for $79.95 eventually bought it. Which Hasbro has tried to do twice now, especially since everything is a data-mined subscription now.
It's a much smaller group of people that want OGL to be "copyleft but TTRPG." There's any number of reasons why that never materialized -- not the least of which is how poorly funded the OGF has been -- but I'd say for essentially everyone who isn't a developer that they don't see much difference. Because most people buy the game, and sometimes buy third party stuff, and then they make their homebrew stuff, and that homebrew is shared casually but never packaged as OGL because it's kind of a PITA to do that right. I mean, Wizards messed it up right out of the game in 2000, and they more than anyone had the resources not to.
To be clear, I meant start a company.
Similar Threads
