WotC updates SRD resources page with CC faq and SRD 5.1 under CC

[darjr]

Systems Reference Document | Dungeons & Dragons

Read the Systems Reference Document (SRD) with guidelines for publishing content under Creative Commons and the Open-Gaming License (OGL).

dnd.wizards.com

Is it ironic that DnDBeyond posts a link to the wizards site?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I read the FAQ on the CC and the OGL.

Seems reasonable and correct (for most values of correct).

Of course, it is just a FAQ.

 

[darjr]

Someone should download it ir make sure it gets in the internet archive

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I found this to be interesting, by the way-

Then is there any benefit to publish my content under OGL 1.0a v Creative Commons?
We expect most creators will start using Creative Commons due to its benefits. Still, OGL 1.0a has been the means by which creators have published their D&D compatible works since 2000. We want you to have the choice on which license to use.


So they are expecting most people to transition to the CC.

 

[Reynard]

I found this to be interesting, by the way-

Then is there any benefit to publish my content under OGL 1.0a v Creative Commons?
We expect most creators will start using Creative Commons due to its benefits. Still, OGL 1.0a has been the means by which creators have published their D&D compatible works since 2000. We want you to have the choice on which license to use.


So they are expecting most people to transition to the CC.

Weird. The correct answer was "Because all the content is there and if you want to use someone else's OGC, you have to."

Further evidence for me that the CC thing is actually going to hurt the "open" part of open gaming. They should have made it CC-BY-SA.

 

[John R Davis]

Using a cross to mean yes!
Actually says I can sell my D&D 5th stuff. .. sure I can't call it D&D though?!

 

[eyeheartawk]

This FAQ will remain the definitive answer on the matter until such time as they decide it's not.

I'm sorry, I had to do it.

 

[Dreamscape]

The correct answer was "Because all the content is there and if you want to use someone else's OGC, you have to."

Or the much more comprehensive SRDs for 3.0E, 3.5E, and Modern.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Weird. The correct answer was "Because all the content is there and if you want to use someone else's OGC, you have to."

Further evidence for me that the CC thing is actually going to hurt the "open" part of open gaming. They should have made it CC-BY-SA.

I completely disagree with you. You're likely saying that because you're familiar with the OGL.

The CC BY is the most open of all the Creative Commons licenses. It just is. As soon as you start to introduce GPL/copyleft into it (CC BY-SA) you start introducing complications. Which we just saw from the OGL, and which GPL has had pains with.

CC BY is clean and (IMO, and afaik, in everyone's opinion) the most legally clear in all jurisdictions. It's the correct choice, especially if the goal is to promote trust.

 

[Reynard]

I completely disagree with you. You're likely saying that because you're familiar with the OGL.

The CC BY is the most open of all the Creative Commons licenses. It just is. As soon as you start to introduce GPL/copyleft into it (CC BY-SA) you start introducing complications. Which we just saw from the OGL, and which GPL has had pains with.

CC BY is clean and (IMO, and afaik, in everyone's opinion) the most legally clear in all jurisdictions. It's the correct choice, especially if the goal is to promote trust.

I wasn't clear: it is going to hurt the part where people are supposed to share their designs and innovate on others designs and have a vibrant community of content creators enjoying freedom in a wide pool of work. What is going to happen with the CC-BY is that most companies are not going to share their work, because they don't have to. What is valuable about Open Gaming isn't just that everyone gets to make 5E books -- it is that everyone gets to share in everyone else's work and in remixing generate something new.