D&D 5E Who tried to end the OGL?

[Dire Bare]

It makes me wonder about the broken promises for the 3.x OGLs done by end of 2023 might be intentionally unprioritizing.

Broken promises? Please.

Missed deadlines? Sure. I miss deadlines all the time, it happens.

 

[Oofta]

Broken promises? Please.

Missed deadlines? Sure. I miss deadlines all the time, it happens.

They've clarified that they still intend to put more into CC, it just takes time to review it all. They want to make sure they don't put something in there that they shouldn't.

Considering the backlash they received I find it hard to believe they'd do anything with the OGL again. I mean, it was stupid, but double down on the stupid? Guess it could happen, but there would be no upside to it. The current is in CC, the 2024 edition will be sometime next year. The older stuff? It's a drop in the bucket, it will eventually get done but it's not a high priority.

 

[Alzrius]

They've clarified that they still intend to put more into CC, it just takes time to review it all. They want to make sure they don't put something in there that they shouldn't.

Attached is a copy of the 3.5 SRD in its entirety.

What precisely is in these documents – all of which have been available to the public for over twenty years now, and all of which (except for the "Legal" document) are 100% Open Game Content (as per the first line in each one save for the aforementioned "Legal" file) – that's taking them on the order of two years to review?

 

[Oofta]

Attached is a copy of the 3.5 SRD in its entirety.

What precisely is in these documents – all of which have been available to the public for over twenty years now, and all of which (except for the "Legal" document) are 100% Open Game Content (as per the first line in each one save for the aforementioned "Legal" file) – that's taking them on the order of two years to review?

Just because it's a priority for you does not mean it's a priority for them. I have no idea what it takes, what legal agreements need to be reviewed, if there are fees or other hoops to go through. I'm not going to speculate.

There's no reason to believe they'd attempt to change the OGL for the minimal amount of product that relies on it for older editions. It kind of made sense that the 3PP for 5E was a potential revenue for them (whether I agree with that idea or not is irrelevant) but there's zero motivation to go after 3PP for older editions.

 

[bedir than]

Attached is a copy of the 3.5 SRD in its entirety.

What precisely is in these documents – all of which have been available to the public for over twenty years now, and all of which (except for the "Legal" document) are 100% Open Game Content (as per the first line in each one save for the aforementioned "Legal" file) – that's taking them on the order of two years to review?

All of the names of various IP that they don't want to go into a Creative Commons so that people think that they can use Strahd for example as something that already happened.

 

[Alzrius]

Just because it's a priority for you does not mean it's a priority for them. I have no idea what it takes, what legal agreements need to be reviewed, if there are fees or other hoops to go through. I'm not going to speculate.

Given that they were able to dump the 5.1 SRD into CC with what couldn't have been more than a few days' effort, saying that they'd add older editions to it in early 2023 and saying that they'll need until early 2025 to do strikes me as quite odd. And while it's true that rushing to put the 5.1 SRD out under CC so fast was a mistake, the conditions that made that mistake possible (i.e. having Product Identity sitting alongside the Open Game Content in the same document) don't exist where the 3.5 SRD is concerned.

I get that WotC has other priorities, but this is something they've already said they're going to do. Given that we've seen numerous people talk about how easy it is to use or add things to the CC, I find it hard to believe that so much reviewing is necessary, even if it's low on their list of things to accomplish.

There's no reason to believe they'd attempt to change the OGL for the minimal amount of product that relies on it for older editions. It kind of made sense that the 3PP for 5E was a potential revenue for them (whether I agree with that idea or not is irrelevant) but there's zero motivation to go after 3PP for older editions.

I think you might be responding so someone else here, since I'm not sure where the "they'd attempt to change the OGL" topic came from.

All of the names of various IP that they don't want to go into a Creative Commons so that people think that they can use Strahd for example as something that already happened.

I posted the 3.5 SRD above; what IP names are in it the way Strahd was that WotC would be concerned about? And how has that IP been seemingly overlooked by everyone for over two decades now (since it'd be OGC anyway if it's in those documents)? And is it IP that's already been released via the 5.1 SRD, making the entire point moot?

 

[bedir than]

I posted the 3.5 SRD above; what IP names are in it the way Strahd was that WotC would be concerned about? And how has that IP been seemingly overlooked by everyone for over two decades now (since it'd be OGC anyway if it's in those documents)? And is it IP that's already been released via the 5.1 SRD, making the entire point moot?

Because the CC is much more open and for some reason not familiar to gamers, the misunderstanding of the limits of the CC are why people made the assumption.
So every single name, all of them

 

[Alzrius]

Because the CC is much more open and for some reason not familiar to gamers, the misunderstanding of the limits of the CC are why people made the assumption.
So every single name, all of them

What names, specifically, are in the 3.5 SRD that WotC would be worried about releasing?

Because the closest thing I can see is the list of names that are specifically called out as not being usable in the "Legal" document. In which case, they just don't release that particular document (which also has the full text of the OGL in it anyway, so that should be a no-brainer), and upload the rest into the CC, since there's no IP in them that WotC hasn't already released for decades now.

 

[Clint_L]

You do know that D&D Beyond has free accounts, right?

You missed my point.

And my many posts on the subject indicate that I am very familiar with DDB.

 

[bedir than]

since there's no IP in them that WotC hasn't already released for decades now

Expecting people to understand the differences between the CC and OGL are where we differ.
I don't think gaming people understand the CC. There's a routine insistence here that "Wizards will nullify it." That's impossible.
There was an insistence upon the 5.1 SRD CC BY release by people online that Strahd was then no longer protected identity at all.

The rules governing the two license systems aren't the same. They shouldn't be treated that way by anyone.