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

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

But that's not on WoTC. Nor is it a feature of the OGL- after all, they don't have to put any of the remix in the OGC, do they? They can just, um, Monte Cook it.

Same here. If you don't trust 3PPs to release their material, well, then they won't. But that's not a WoTC issue, is it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

They seem to be under the assumption that the only thing people care about is the status of the SRD 5.1, not any of the other material (both WotC and otherwise) released under the 1.0a.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But that's not on WoTC. Nor is it a feature of the OGL- after all, they don't have to put any of the remix in the OGC, do they? They can just, um, Monte Cook it.

Same here. If you don't trust 3PPs to release their material, well, then they won't. But that's not a WoTC issue, is it?

The status of the other WotC SRDs released under the 1.0a definitely is a WotC issue though.

 

[Jer]

They seem to be under the assumption that the only thing people care about is the status of the SRD 5.1, not any of the other material (both WotC and otherwise) released under the 1.0a.

I suspect that's because that's all they care about. Also they are more concerned about not blowing up their relationship with the folks whose 3pp publishing directly supports them rather than caring about their relationship with folks whose 3pp publishing is supporting an older edition or a not-D&D offshoot.

It's a bit myopic, since there's overlap in that group. But it's par for the course for how Wizards views open gaming since sometime shortly before 4e became their plan.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I suspect that's because that's all they care about. Also they are more concerned about not blowing up their relationship with the folks whose 3pp publishing directly supports them rather than caring about their relationship with folks whose 3pp publishing is supporting an older edition or a not-D&D offshoot.

It's a bit myopic, since there's overlap in that group. But it's par for the course for how Wizards views open gaming since sometime shortly before 4e became their plan.

If that's all they cared about, they could have released 5.1 to the CC and still tried to de-auth the 1.0a. The ability to use the 5.1 SRD would be unaffected.

 

[Haplo781]

The status of the other WotC SRDs released under the 1.0a definitely is a WotC issue though.

And the one they didn't.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

I hate to say it, but a lot of this comes from misunderstanding the OGL. There's nothing in the OGL that forces creators to share their stuff as OGC. It's certainly in the spirit of the OGL, but not actually in the letter of the OGL. If you wrongly assume it did (it didn't), then of course you'll see the CC-BY license as more restrictive. But that's entirely based on an incorrect understanding of the OGL.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

CC-BY-SA makes no provision for holding back product identity as the OGL does. If any smidgen of CC-BY-SA content gets into your work, the whole thing must be released under the same license.

I can't imagine many 3PPs being willing to use CC-BY-SA.

 

[overgeeked]

I put up a thread of CC resources over in the D&D section.

D&D 5E - Creative Commons and D&D

There are already a few hundred threads to talk about how the OGL works. This thread is meant to be about Creative Commons. If someone wants to open a compare and contrast thread, please do. # Compare and contrast the CC and OGL in this other thread, please...

www.enworld.org

 

[Reynard]

But that's not on WoTC. Nor is it a feature of the OGL- after all, they don't have to put any of the remix in the OGC, do they? They can just, um, Monte Cook it.

Emphasis mine -- they did, in fact. Not that anyone ever called anyone on it. But the definition of "Product Identity" in the OGL is pretty solidly NOT game emchanics, and the definition of OGC is anything derivative of OGC. You*might* be able to make an argument for, say, the AiME adaptation of the TOR Journey rules since they weren't originally based on OGC, but by using SRD stats and skills in the rolls, it's questionable.

Just because a lot of people tried to avoid supporting Open Gaming while benefiting from it doesn't make it right.