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

[Reynard]

The OGL doesn't either. Does it? I didn't think there was a requirement.

Or are you saying they should have picked a CC that did require giving back to the community?

Others disagree, but I think the whole of the Definitions section of OGL 1.0a makes it clear that all derivative works are OGC unless named PI, but PI DOES NOT cover game mechanics.

1. Definitions: (a)"Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute; (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) "Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) "You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement

As far as I know, it has never been tested in court. I am not aware of any situation in which one publisher used mechanics that another publisher had designated PI, and was subsequently C&D'd by the first publisher and taken to court.

A lot of folks are just proclaiming things as true without any actual evidence other than the fact that people did it without consequence.

 

[Gradine]

CC-BY-SA would by definition create the largest possible pool of OGC because it would all have to be OGC and frankly Wizards has the leverage to make that happen without negatively impacting it too much.

On the other hand, CC-BY is by its very nature a more open license because you can do more with it (including own the rights to your own additions) which is, in practical terms, going to lead to more content, period, even if less of the IP ends up in the OGC in specific.

There's pros and cons to each approach. Pathfinder's lore and setting aren't OGC, for instance, which wouldn't be possible under CC-BY-SA.

 

[Parmandur]

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 how many publishers ever really did that...?

 

[Parmandur]

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.

Never underestimate the capacity of human ignorance, even from smart people.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

That probably refers to how a DMsGuild project can tap into any 5E book.

 

[Parmandur]

It was a "coding bug" according to DMs Guild but raised a lot of questions:

Spoiler: Twitter content...

Probably ly is a bug, considering all the non-WotC IP there.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, on the one had I'll take them at their word that it's a coding error. The "Settings ever published by Wizards/TSR" field crossed with the "Settings Wizards allows third parties to publish for on DM's Guild" in a bad way.

On the other hand, what are Kingdom's of Kalamar and Wilderlands of High Fantasy doing in that list?

(Oddly if you use the search box on DM's Guild and type in "Kingdoms of" it autocompletes it with Kalamar and lets you search - to find no products on the site. Same for "Wilderlands of". It does feel like a coding but but what a weird one.)

Probably because those products ate on OneBookShelf elsewhere.

 

[JEB]

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.

Weren't they talking at one point before ostensibly giving up on OGL 2.0 about adding more races and the artificer to the SRD? Might be a reference to that.

Mind, they also said they were looking into releasing older editions at the time, and this FAQ is silent on that. Hard to say what's in the works.

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.

Of course, the PR risk didn't deter Goodman Games and Cubicle 7 from using the fruits of the SRDs and not giving anything back... (I like both companies but still, not cool.)

 

[Parmandur]

Weren't they talking at one point before ostensibly giving up on OGL 2.0 about adding more races and the artificer to the SRD? Might be a reference to that.

Mind, they also said they were looking into releasing older editions at the time, and this FAQ is silent on that. Hard to say what's in the works.


Of course, the PR risk didn't deter Goodman Games and Cubicle 7 from using the fruits of the SRDs and not giving anything back... (I like both companies but still, not cool.)

Part of the leaks was that there was an SRD 5.2 which included way more 5E material. Who knows if that will ever see the light of day now?

 

[Parmandur]

@JEB

"Right off the bay, it looks like they are planning to release the OGL v5.2 on Monday Jan 16th (which include more species and the artificer)"