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

[Reynard]

@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)"

I don't know who that is, but considering they don't know the difference between the OGL and the SRD I would pretty much dismiss them.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't know who that is, but considering they don't know the difference between the OGL and the SRD I would pretty much dismiss them.

Well, this was apparently a legit leak of WotC first attenpt ar damage control g out to puvlishers directly, even if this guy is confused (no edit button on Twitter).

 

[Parmandur]

I don't know who that is, but considering they don't know the difference between the OGL and the SRD I would pretty much dismiss them.

Also, here he cites the new SRD correctly:

 

[JEB]

Well, this was apparently a legit leak of WotC first attenpt ar damage control g out to puvlishers directly, even if this guy is confused (no edit button on Twitter).

Yeah, the rest of the thread is consistent with other leaks of 2.0.

I wonder if SRD 5.2 is/was going to be/will be the One D&D SRD.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, the rest of the thread is consistent with other leaks of 2.0.

I wonder if SRD 5.2 is/was going to be/will be the One D&D SRD.

I mean, an SRD for OneD&D at some point would be expected. If I were them (and clearly I'm not), I'd keep OneD&D OGL, but make a new STL with bigger carrots than the d20 STL had (access to sell toNd&D Beyond customers, the right to use WotC trademarks, something between CC/OGL and DMsGuild basically). That would give WotC a mechanism to help distinguish approved from unapproved third party content. But who knows what theybwill actually do.

 

[mangamuscle]

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.

"revenge is a dish best served cold"

 

[see]

The "GPL is more free/open because it keeps people from appropriating free/open material" versus "BSD is more free/open because it gives people more rights to use free/open material" debate was so old already a quarter-century ago.

Definitional debates can't be won, only appealed to authority. If somebody is using "open" the other way, don't argue the definition, just let it go.

 

[Enrahim2]

The "GPL is more free/open because it keeps people from appropriating free/open material" versus "BSD is more free/open because it gives people more rights to use free/open material" debate was so old already a quarter-century ago.

Definitional debates can't be won, only appealed to authority. If somebody is using "open" the other way, don't argue the definition, just let it go.

I think the dust settled on GPL being more "free", while BSD being more "open"? But this put the GPL at a disadvantage, as it struggle to explain its benefit over BSD without including a multi page essay on how "free" do not mean "free beer" but "freed slave". :/

 

[Morrus]

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

If the OGL v1.0a still exists, then those SRDs are perfectly valid, just like the 5E SRD.

 

[Morrus]

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.

Yeah, it's a bit of a pain. I couldn't really use it for any book which contains IP I need to keep, which means I'd need to use the OGL v1.0a instead.