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

[Alzrius]

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.

So what names/IP, specifically, are in the 3.5 SRD documents that WotC needs two years of time to make sure they don't accidentally release them under the CC license? You don't have to name them all, just cite a few examples and what 3.5 SRD document they're from.

 

[Oofta]

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.

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.


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?

Do you know what's required to put something into CC? Because I don't and I'm not going to speculate other than to say that I assume it's more than just "here's a document". I also don't see why it matters at this point. YMMV.

 

[Alzrius]

Do you know what's required to put something into CC? Because I don't and I'm not going to speculate other than to say that I assume it's more than just "here's a document".

Leaving aside that WotC's release of the 5.1 SRD into the CC consisted of them swapping out the OGL section of it for the CC license attribution, I'll direct you to what @kenmarable said about this very subject in a recent thread:

The CC-BY license would literally just require putting the text:

This work includes material taken from the System Reference Document 5.1 (“SRD 5.1”) by Wizards of the Coast LLC and available at Systems Reference Document | Dungeons & Dragons. The SRD 5.1 is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License available at CC BY 4.0 Legal Code | Attribution 4.0 International | Creative Commons.

I also don't see why it matters at this point. YMMV.

Because it highlights why WotC's stated reason for needing so long to add the old SRDs into the CC is so odd.

 

[GreyLord]

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?

4E

 

[Alzrius]

4E

The 4E SRDs don't need to be reviewed, they need to be rewritten from the ground up, since they're nothing but formatting templates and lists of abilities/feats/spells/monsters with no explanations, stats, or anything else that's useful.

Of course, I was asking specifically with regard to the 3.5 SRD anyway, so that's kind of a moot point.

 

[GreyLord]

The 4E SRDs don't need to be reviewed, they need to be rewritten from the ground up, since they're nothing but formatting templates and lists of abilities/feats/spells/monsters with no explanations, stats, or anything else that's useful.

Of course, I was asking specifically with regard to the 3.5 SRD anyway, so that's kind of a moot point.

3.5 and IF 4e is released, will be relatively close. Same team from what I can tell.

You are right, anything that is released for 4e is needing review...and there's a LOT that probably is contested should NOT be released. Should it even BE released.

What in 3.5 should relate to other versions, what is comfortable being in the CC vs. the OGL.

Should there be arguments with higher ups on these issues or not?

Probably not right now...they have other items that are more important (for example, the revised edition books coming out in a few months) to prioritize (as one would put it) over them. They are low down on the list (read...aren't going to bring in the bacon or bring home the money) over these items being released to the CC.

I was on the side of the OGL when it was the hot topic, but right now, I understand the point of view that it is a far lower priority than other things. I don't think that's too hard of a thing to understand.

Unless you are willing to pay several hundred million to prioritize it over other things.

 

[jerryrice4949]

I think the charitable read had been that it was someone at Hasbro outside of WotC that had pushed it on the folks at WotC, not understanding gaming.

Cocks has worked hard to brand himself the "cool gamer" CEO and him being behind the OGL fiasco, if true, suggests that either he doesn't really understand the gaming space or his gaming cred doesn't really make a meaningful difference.

We will probably never know the whys. But I think the general outrage probably misses a lot of nuance. I doubt the sole reason was to destroy all OGL products and he probably wrongly through that they were offering a lot of attractive carrots to 3PP. Not sure it even matters anymore.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

We will probably never know the whys. But I think the general outrage probably misses a lot of nuance. I doubt the sole reason was to destroy all OGL products and he probably wrongly through that they were offering a lot of attractive carrots to 3PP. Not sure it even matters anymore.

I think we will eventually know, but not on any timeline that will help anyone win arguments any time soon.

 

[Alzrius]

3.5 and IF 4e is released, will be relatively close. Same team from what I can tell.

You are right, anything that is released for 4e is needing review...and there's a LOT that probably is contested should NOT be released. Should it even BE released.

What in 3.5 should relate to other versions, what is comfortable being in the CC vs. the OGL.

Should there be arguments with higher ups on these issues or not?

Probably not right now...they have other items that are more important (for example, the revised edition books coming out in a few months) to prioritize (as one would put it) over them. They are low down on the list (read...aren't going to bring in the bacon or bring home the money) over these items being released to the CC.

I was on the side of the OGL when it was the hot topic, but right now, I understand the point of view that it is a far lower priority than other things. I don't think that's too hard of a thing to understand.

Unless you are willing to pay several hundred million to prioritize it over other things.

I honestly don't expect them to release anything for 4E at all. I'd be pleasantly surprised to be wrong, but I expect them to release the 3.5 SRD, maybe the Modern SRD, and maybe-but-probably-not the 3.0 SRD. My guess is that 4E will be overlooked entirely.

As for all of that being a low priority for them, I'm sure that it is. Likewise, I have no doubt that they're short-staffed after multiple rounds of layoffs last year. But at the same time, if those three SRDs are the only ones they're releasing, then even if it's low priority, that's balanced out by the fact that there's no real need for any kind of laborious review, since as I've noted before, nothing is in those SRDs that wasn't already released to the public. They weren't formatted like the 5.1 SRD was, intermingling OGC with PI. The idea that there's valuable D&D IP in those old SRDs which hasn't been available to the public before, but could be if WotC releases them into the Creative Commons, is nonsensical.

Reviewing those old documents should take no time at all, let alone two years from when they said they were going to do it. Even in the midst of releasing 5.2E, there's no reason for it to take that long.

 

[jerryrice4949]

View attachment 361931

Maybe a little melodramatic.