HUZZAH!
The Upcoming New OGL 1.1 vs. OGL 1.0a and Cepheus
- Thread starter Nathan Brazil
- Start date
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
No SRD I've read lacks a copyright notice. It's licensed content, not public domain.
No. Not even close.
The sections under CC do not include the classes nor races.
The OGL itself, if 1.2 is the one they go with for 5e, would result in needing litigation to determine the validity of the deauthorization of 1.0a, and how much that is applicable to non-D&D.
And since it will hit the 9th circuit... the sanity of any decision is historically super random on IP cases.
The thing is, "leaving the OGL1.0a untcouched" doesn't mean they won't try again next year.
Really, we WANT it litigated, and made crystal clear by a judge.
Last edited:
RockyMountainNavy20
SOC-1
Much to my surprise, WotC actually placed the ENTIRE SRD under the CC license.
“We are also making the entire SRD 5.1 available under a Creative Commons license.”
I looked it over and it appears complete. Technically, WotC seems to be taking the Evil Hat Publishing approach used for FATE which is available under two licenses; OGL 1.0a and CC-BY-4.0.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
As I understand the politics, boycotting the Dungeons And Dragons movie isn't so much about the lost money it could have made, but rather the difficulty of attracting investors and studios for future projects, if Hasbro has demonstrated how badly they can annoy deeply entrenched fandoms, who would have been relied on break even the balance sheet and influence others to watch them.
For those who are interested here is the SRD 5.1 under the CC
I wrote a post on the various issues remaining
batintheattic.blogspot.com
Including the need to make d20 SRD and the d20 Modern SRD licensed under CC-BY. And a OGL 1.0b to protect works like Traveller20 from being orphaned as it's publisher sadly passed away and is no longer around to update the license.
I wrote a post on the various issues remaining
An Unexpected Victory, Unconditional Surrender, and Unfinished Business.
I understand everybody is tired of Wizard's drama despite the good news. I appreciate that once again you have taken the time to read my pos...
batintheattic.blogspot.com
Including the need to make d20 SRD and the d20 Modern SRD licensed under CC-BY. And a OGL 1.0b to protect works like Traveller20 from being orphaned as it's publisher sadly passed away and is no longer around to update the license.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
More reporting ...
That's still only a partial victory - there's no promise D&D One will be under the same license.
There's also no resolution of whether or not the OGL 1.0a is able to be deauthorized. Which could still very much happen a little down the road.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
Not so. SRD has been released for anyone to use, modify, and publish, under certain conditions. Primarily that it has to be a human-readable format. For example, The Hypertext d20 SRD notice is as follows
The only specific WotC copyright noted is the use of 'd20 system' and its logo. The notice doesn't say that the SRD is copyrighted by WotC, except in a roundabout way. Technically, the user should own the relevant WotC book(s) to use this document. But it isn't like WotC can realistically enforce it.
The presentation, format, scripting, etc. is copyrighted, in this case not by WotC but by BoLS. The actual SRD text published by WotC is covered by OGL. But the game as a set of rules is not copyrightable, and anybody can use the mechanics as long as they publish in their own words.
Since the OGL is there, allowing free license to use the WotC text, most publishers use it instead of reinventing the wheel. There are publishers who don't use the SRD but still use the OGL for their work. OSRIC, for example. There are publishers who use the OGL as a license for their own work, even without any direct connection to DnD. There are other licenses already in use, the Open Content License for example.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
Oh look ... even more reporting ...
ONEDnD = the anticipated quantity of the customer base for the product (... one ...)
ONEDnD = the anticipated quantity of the customer base for the product (... one ...)
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Board rules prevent my replying how I want to...
so I will just state that I am cancelling my D&Dnext playtest membership and will no longer buy D&D products from them until they recant of their stance. If they don't want me, they don't get my money.
so I will just state that I am cancelling my D&Dnext playtest membership and will no longer buy D&D products from them until they recant of their stance. If they don't want me, they don't get my money.
daryen
SOC-14 1K
I gotta say that WotC is doing an absolutely amazing job! They are somehow managing to piss of not only the woke fanbase, but also the anti-woke fanbase. It is very impressive how WotC can mobilize their entire fanbase (or now, I guess, former fanbase), even parts that hate each other, to all hate them.
It's all very impressive.
It's all very impressive.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
Hasbro/WotC has fumbled this SO BADLY that the only course left to them to mitigate the damage they've caused to themselves is going to be "heads on pikes as a warning to the next 10 generations" ... and even that won't save them from their own misjudgement. At best it will only staunch the excessively profuse bleeding (somewhat).
daryen
SOC-14 1K
For the record, I do want to point out that the point being taken from the Clownfish video not what Brink was actually saying. His point was just that the WotC leadership needs to be less white and male. He was not saying that should be done to the actual gamers. (He did say he thinks gamers are getting less white and male, but that was a reason for the need for change in WotC leadership, not a goal itself.) Of course he was saying it very poorly and so managed to offend pretty much everyone with that comment. (Yes, the "woke" had just as many problems with his statements, but for different reasons.)
Far be it from me to keep anyone from hating on WotC. They so deserve it that I am no longer particular on why anyone hates them. I just want to point out that Clownfish was merely producing click-bait, not actually reporting what the guy said in context.
Far be it from me to keep anyone from hating on WotC. They so deserve it that I am no longer particular on why anyone hates them. I just want to point out that Clownfish was merely producing click-bait, not actually reporting what the guy said in context.
I'm in similar mindset.
And thanks for keeping the language within bounds.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
I think the management at Hasbro doesn't understand the concept of goodwill, intangible as it is.
I don't know if they did the fanbase a favour, because I feel indifference, which probably means that any nostalgic notions I had about the successor owner of the Dungeons and Dragons franchise holder have evaporated.
Monetization is required to fully support the hobby in general, and the Dungeon and Dragon settings in particular, but there is a difference in milking the cow, and grounding it up for hamburger.
I don't know if they did the fanbase a favour, because I feel indifference, which probably means that any nostalgic notions I had about the successor owner of the Dungeons and Dragons franchise holder have evaporated.
Monetization is required to fully support the hobby in general, and the Dungeon and Dragon settings in particular, but there is a difference in milking the cow, and grounding it up for hamburger.
daryen
SOC-14 1K
Outta curiosity, has there been any work done to update the Traveller SRD (on which Cepheus is based) to CC or ORC? I know Mongoose Matt said they were doing something big, but I haven't see any announcement. Irrespective of that, I'd still like to see the Traveller SRD (and thus Cepheus) decoupled from the OGL and attached to something that can't be pulled on a whim.
There is currently a draft SRD2 circulating with the Cepheus publishers and we are collating comments!
