Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Guess what? OGL 1.0a is still there, and still with the exact same status it had before.
The problem with its status are problems inherent with the license, and cannot be cured by a FAQ.
WotC updates SRD resources page with CC faq and SRD 5.1 under CC
- Thread starter darjr
- Start date
Guess what? OGL 1.0a is still there, and still with the exact same status it had before.
The problem with its status are problems inherent with the license, and cannot be cured by a FAQ.
No because that wouldn't have ended the maelstrom of bad PR. It probably would have made it worse and would have muddied up any goodwill they got from the CC-BY release of the core rules.
As to why they didn't just release the 3e SRD to CC - they have memory holed the 3e SRD as much as they possibly can. I am not even sure that they thought that the revocation of the OGL 1.0a was an attack on 3e versions of the game or the rest of the industry's use of the license. I think they were mostly targeting folks making 5e compatible stuff and the broader folks still using 3e SRD material weren't even on their radar.
If you think that's an impossible thing and that they couldn't possibly be that ignorant of the market they are a part of, be aware that one of my fundamental beliefs about the current executives at Wizards are that they're fairly ignorant of the actual dynamics of the markets they are in because they have no actual history working in any of them - they're mostly digital people, not analog.
The OGL clearly defines both PI and OGC. As far as a I know, no one was ever tested for trying to circumvent those definitions, but they should have been.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Again ... this is now a 3PP issue, not a Wizards issue.
If you keep insisting that the real problem is that you don't trust the 3PPs to do the right thing, that's a separate issue entirely. WoTC released the 5.1 SRD under the most open of the CC licenses.
I'm not sure why you are repeating this when I gave you the context in the way I used the term.
Twiggly the Gnome
Legend
The publishers that didn't care about paying it forward should be happy with the CC-BY SRD, the only thing that changes is them not having to say all my content is PI.
I'm glad the ORC is still in development for folks that want to support open gaming and the OGC ecosystem.
I'm glad the ORC is still in development for folks that want to support open gaming and the OGC ecosystem.
This is all true, and there are a lot of examples of companies basically using the OGL as if it had no sharealike clause.
However I will say that the OGL makes it a lot easier to share material than a CC-BY license does because with the OGL it's an "opt out" on what you're sharing, whereas with a CC-BY it's opt-in and you have to figure out how to designate what you're sharing instead of outlining explicitly what you're not sharing.
CC-BY-SA is the absolute wrong license to use and would have had Wizards accused of bad faith if they'd done it. CC-BY-SA has no provision for opting anything out and so most companies wouldn't want to go near it.
There's a real gap in the CC licenses where an OGL style "opt out" SA license would fit nicely. It does rely on people playing nice, but it doesn't put any extra barriers up for the folks who want to play nice.
rules.mechanic
Craft homebrewer
I found this statement interesting:
Will more content be added to the SRD? The full 5th edition game and its expansions are available for use via the DMs Guild. New material will be added to the SRD if it is necessary to keep this document and its contents compatible with the latest D&D rules.
Will more content be added to the SRD? The full 5th edition game and its expansions are available for use via the DMs Guild. New material will be added to the SRD if it is necessary to keep this document and its contents compatible with the latest D&D rules.
overgeeked
B/X Known World
If publisher X uses the OGC of publisher Y and changes it a bit, that new, changed bit is not by default OGC. You seem to think, and repeatedly insist, that it is OGC...but it is not. That's never been how the OGL worked. Whatever content the publisher makes OGC is all that's OGC. If someone wants to stand on the shoulders of OGC and not release their stuff as OGC, that's entirely their choice. You and I agree that they should, but there's nothing in the OGL that requires them to. The CC-BY license is far more open than the OGL.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
I think that there are some fundamental issues with the approach of the OGL from a legal perspective that haven't been truly examined until recently.
The issues with copyleft and public licenses have been iterated and discussed for, what, 40 years now, and some of them keep coming up- fundamentally, this is why we see the approach taken by Creative Commons.
But that's a whole 'nother issue.
That doesn't sound like "we plan to add older editions" to me.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
....because it's true.
It's (CC BY) is the most open CC they have, and it's the best one that they could use.
rules.mechanic
Craft homebrewer
They probably can't add older editions to the same SRD but let's hope they also release the older edition SRDs to CC. What I find interesting is that:
- For the SRD: they seem to be committing to update the 5.1 SRD (which is a little out-of-date even before you consider recent changes to races, or future changes in preparation for 1DnD)
- For DMs Guild: "full... game and it's expansions" sounds like they're opening up more expansions to being DMs Guild legal (in keeping with that screenshot doing the rounds that lists a LOT of additional settings as options)
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Wake me up when they open up Greyhawk to the DM's Guild.
overgeeked
B/X Known World
The what now?
That was the plan when they were eliminating the OGL 1.0a and moving to a new OGL. Adding older edition material to the CC-BY license made sense from their perspective to make people happy because it the OGL 1.0a was going away.
From their perspective, backing off the OGL deauth serves the same purpose, even if it really doesn't.
I mean, as soon as your predicted 50th anniversary Greyhawk release happens it'll happen
(I'm curious to see if Greyhawk would get a massive uptake on DM's Guild or if the intersection of "folks who want to publish Greyhawk stuff" and "folks who want to publish for 5e" is too small to make a large impact).
Enrahim2
Adventurer
Actually, most derived OGC is OGC per default, as most of it is what is described as "game mechanics". Per 1.0a section 1(d) this is per default OGC. The way that maybe might prevent such from being ogc is to argue they embody product identity.
And thus is the beauty of it! While it might not strictly speaking legaly bind you to share alike, the only way of avoiding it is to put explicitly on paper that you dont want to give this to the community. This is not looking good, and quite obvious. Hence as long as there isnt a conspiracy starting to exploit this in a way that normalises it, the PR risk of not sharing alike is normally just more than what you can expect to gain from holding on to the IP - unless it is already well established reasonable product identity like a "Jedi" class.
Thus this soft SA has indeed been extremely succefull in making a great effectively SA arrangement.
(I have to add that I am not convinced it is not actually legally SA, but this post is written under the assumption that the essence of the post I reply to was correct)
Last edited:
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
rules.mechanic
Craft homebrewer
Similar Threads
