WotC 2024 D&D Core Rules Will Be Added To SRD In 2025

The 2024 version of the D&D core rules will be included in an expanded version of the System Reference Document, and available to third parties via Creative Commons (though there is no mention of thr Open Gaming License). The new SRD 5.2 will be available early 2025 after the new Monster Manual has been released.

The new SRD will be localized in the languages which WotC supports.

Regarding the long-awaited SRDs for previous editions, WotC says that they will start reviewing those documents once the 2024 rulebooks are out.

 

[Reynard]

It was the fourth time we said it.

So what's the legal argument that you can't do that? You said "The point is we should want to have both" in response to WOTC just releasing stuff into the CC. So what's the legal argument that someone cannot then take what WOTC puts into the CC for 5.5e, and releases it into the OGL for others to use so that you can then use both?

Did you notice how the person that approached the question reasonably got a reasonable response?

The answer to your question is probably "release into CC is not release into the public domain and you still don't own the content which means you can't sublicense it."

 

[bedir than]

Feels like a question for an actual IP lawyer, but my guess is that no random person is authorized to enter something released under CC into another separate license.

You should be able to mix licenses (millions of websites, newspapers and magazines do this), but not release material you don't own into a new license.
If you are thinking about doing this, HIRE SOMEONE WITH EXPERTISE.

 

[Reynard]

You should be able to mix licenses (millions of websites, newspapers and magazines do this), but not release material you don't own into a new license.
If you are thinking about doing this, HIRE SOMEONE WITH EXPERTISE.

Agreed

 

[bedir than]

I can't blame WotC for wanting to purge a bunch of IP from a CC BY version of previous D&D editions.

When the name 'Strahd' showed up in the SRD 5.1 CC BY there were 100s of people that thought they could do whatever they wanted with Strahd's entire history.

Those people were wrong, but a company trying to stamp down that clear abuse is going to lose the PR battle. It's much easier to remove their IP

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think CC gives you right over the thing? It isn't a declaration that it is in the public domain. That's a different thing. It just means whatever the license says, and CC-BY is a license.

Feels like a question for an actual IP lawyer, but my guess is that no random person is authorized to enter something released under CC into another separate license.

From the CC license, "All CC licenses are non-exclusive: creators and owners can enter into additional, different licensing arrangements for the same material at any time (often referred to as “dual-licensing” or “multi-licensing”). "

I can think of no reason why you cannot publish under the CC, using CC material, and then license that same material into the OGL, provided you obey the attribution requirements.

 

[CleverNickName]

Me, at 12:30 p.m.:

Pardon my ignorance, but what are the main differences between releasing the new SRD under the OGL, and releasing it under Creative Commons? Why would they want/need to do both?

I guess that's the part that's confusing me. If both are open licenses, why would you need both? Isn't one always going to be enough? Is there ever a situation where one would be preferable to the other?

Me, 8 hours (and 17 pages of comments) later:

 

[Mistwell]

Did you notice how the person that approached the question reasonably got a reasonable response?

Don't tone police me after you repeatedly rudely called what I was saying nonsense for no reason. The word you're looking for is "sorry" here, not doubling down on rudeness.

The answer to your question is probably "release into CC is not release into the public domain and you still don't own the content which means you can't sublicense it."

You don't need it to be public domain, CC allows you to re-license into more restrictive licenses like the OGL under it's terms, provided you continue to obey the attribution requirement. I can't think of any reason why it can't be done. It's right there in the text of the CC that you can then release the material into another license.

 

[Reynard]

I can't blame WotC for wanting to purge a bunch of IP from a CC BY version of previous D&D editions.

When the name 'Strahd' showed up in the SRD 5.1 CC BY there were 100s of people that thought they could do whatever they wanted with Strahd's entire history.

Those people were wrong, but a company trying to stamp down that clear abuse is going to lose the PR battle. It's much easier to remove their IP

This is the result of a rushed (however well intentioned) released into CC. WotC knew they screwed up big trying to deauthorize the OGL, and when they needed a solution they quickly released the SRD into CC. They failed to appreciate that CC doesn't have a Product Idfntity clause.

Even so, Strahd and similar elements should be protected under Trademark. If not, a whole legal team needs fired.

 

[Reynard]

Don't tone police me after you repeatedly rudely called what I was saying nonsense for no reason. The word you're looking for is "sorry" here, not doubling down on rudeness.

Bye.

 

[mamba]

The stats aren't yours, though. They're existing OGC that you're remixing and repurposing.

says who... if I make a new monster, the stats are mine, they follow the progression and wording set by the others, but they are still my stats, skills, etc. I did not just take the Orc and called it something else

The "have" part of "you have to declare it OGC" is referring to something you're compelled to do when you use the OGL. As in, you're not in compliance with the license if you don't declare what's OGC and what's PI

there is no 'have to' part in the license... even if there were I can still declare it PI to avoid this

If you present a stat block, then you are using game mechanics. It's really that simple.

no, I am using 6 words from the English language, there is no way you get that passed through court as game mechanics

And yes, using the six attributes of "Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma" (in that order), each with a numerical rating after them, probably means that you're using WotC's copyright

that is more worth a shot, but still pretty debatable. At the same time, I am using the OGL to avoid this, so...