WotC To Give Core D&D Mechanics To Community Via Creative Commons

Wizards of the Coast, in a move which surprised everbody, has announced that it will give away the core D&D mechanics to the community via a Creative Commons license.

This won't include 'quintessentially D&D" stuff like owlbears and magic missile, but it wil include the 'core D&D mechanics'.

So what does it include? It's important to note that it's only a fraction of what's currently available as Open Gaming Content under the existing Open Gaming License, so while it's termed as a 'give-away' it's actually a reduction. It doesn't include classes, spells, or magic items. It does include the combat rules, ability scores, and the core mechanic.

 

[ThrorII]

I kind of feel it has to.

Question: Would it be possible/acceptable to Wizards to withdraw the 5.1 SRD from 1.0 OGL as a 'half deauthorization' ?

I feel that for most of the OSR community, that would be acceptable. Create a 1.0(b) OGL that is stated as "irrevocable" "perpetual" and whatever other language deemed necessary, and covers the 3.5 SRD only, or just excludes the 5.1 SRD.

Would everyone be happy? No. Some want in on the 5e gravy train. Would it protect all the OSR publishers, and Paizo? Yes.

 

[mamba]

Anyone can use Open content. That is what open means. Anyone who uses the CC license is required to make the derivatives Open. The CC lacks protected Product Identity.

this is simply not true, no matter how often you repeat it

By using a CC "open license", you sign away your right to keep your creative content closed.

nonsense, clearly you never read the license. There are plenty of CC licenses and some do, but CC-BY does not for example, which is the one used here (CC-BY-SA would however). I even copied the text / summary, and yet you repeat this

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You could do it without the OGL before, but to be safe you would have needed the services of a good IP lawyer to make sure you're not accidentally infringing, or to try to defend you in court if WotC felt otherwise and took action. The OGL was a set of clearly spelled out guidelines that you let you make content without having to ask a lawyer if you were clear of any copyright infringement.

I can’t tell if you are intending to correct me, or agree with me, because that is basically what I was saying.

The value of the OGL is in large part not having to worry about copyright ambiguity and a future litigious IP-holder.

The rest of the value is that it created a big tent, and a lingua franca, and thus a thriving ecosystem of games, but allowing you to use things that you probably would lose in court over, like the exactly reproduced text of the section on Spellcasting, or the literal fighter class as expressed in the SRD. No hoops.

 

[Yaarel]

this is simply not true, no matter how often you repeat it

nonsense, clearly you never read the license. There are plenty of CC licenses and some do, but CC-BY does not for example, which is the one used here (CC-BY-SA would however). I even copied the text / summary, and yet you repeat this

With the CC license, you can monetize your derivative modifications. But you cant prevent competitors from also monetizing you modifications.

The CC license lacks a mechanism to "close" content.

As you yourself quote:

"YOU MAY NOT ... RESTRICT OTHERS from doing anything the license permits."

There is no protected closed content in a CC license. There is no "Product Identity" that can derive from modification of open content from a CC license.

 

[Yaarel]

The significance is, any gaming product that one would create using CC content from Hasbro-WotC, would lose the protection of being closed Property Identity.

 

[CleverNickName]

Creative Commons 3.0 is the license I used to publish my blogs on Blogspot, back in the day. It had a few rules I had to follow, but nothing worth fighting about. This one that Wizards of the Coast mentions, the Creative Commons 4.0 license, is even less strict than a blog: it allows you to use it commercially and create derivative works, for example.

I think you guys are hitting the panic button a little too eagerly.

 

[Yaarel]

it allows you to use it commercially and create derivative works, for example.

The CC 4.0 allows you modify open content and sell your modification.

However, the CC 4.0 forbids you to prevent others from modifying and selling your content that you modified.

By contrast.

The OGL 1.0a allows you to modify open content and sell your modification.

But it also allows you to declare your own modification to be a "Product Identity" that others cannot modify or sell without your permission.

This Product Identity is vital.

 

[Scribe]

I feel that for most of the OSR community, that would be acceptable. Create a 1.0(b) OGL that is stated as "irrevocable" "perpetual" and whatever other language deemed necessary, and covers the 3.5 SRD only, or just excludes the 5.1 SRD.

Would everyone be happy? No. Some want in on the 5e gravy train. Would it protect all the OSR publishers, and Paizo? Yes.

Honestly, this is the line for me if they refuse to budge off of 5e.

 

[Ghal Maraz]

I'm guessing the community will still need the ORC, whatever it happens with OGL. The "morale clause" is too much of a risk. And I still find it not necessary, as almost all of the (very few) RPG discutibile products out there weren't ever made with the OGL.

 

[treps]

Open Game Content (OGC) is not even a notion defined or existing in the licence... 23 years of OGC are now not even usable in new publication under this licence...