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

[Mistwell]

Let's see. We have two basic options. Either there's some nefarious reason, or it's typical bureaucratic delays and issues we know nothing about combined with a low priority.

I'd bet on bureaucracy.

Always bet on bureaucracy being the reason things are slow and not quite right. It's a very safe bet, provided you fill out form 438a-1 (2023).

 

[Oofta]

I don't know what you mean by "an issue," but when someone (i.e. WotC) puts forward a ridiculous reason as though it was something sensible, and then other people echo that sentiment ("it just takes time to review it all. They want to make sure they don't put something in there that they shouldn't."), I find merit in pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

Yeah. Shocking. WOTC is a bureaucracy and has different priorities than you.

 

[dave2008]

It's more correct to say that it doesn't make sense to any rational scrutiny.

There you go being insulting again. Can you stop?

We can't really rationally scrutinize, IMO, because we don't really know the reasons. That is really the end of the discussion as far as I am concerned.

Or do you think that those 100% Open Game Content documents have WotC IP that's in danger of being made into open content if it's released into the Creative Commons?

Pointing out that WotC's saying that they need so long to review the old SRDs (because otherwise they might release IP that was already released) makes no sense isn't complaining.

We don't know that is reason, or part of the reason, or not the reason as all. We don't know.

What we do know is: there is still a plan to publish a 5.2 SRD to CC (which many doubted) and review older editions to release to CC.

Now what bothered me in the statement was no mention of releasing the 5.4 SRD to OGL.

 

[Yaarel]

Or do you think that those 100% Open Game Content documents have WotC IP that's in danger of being made into open content if it's released into the Creative Commons?

Im not sure. Maybe?

The 3e SRD has its OGL with built-in IP protection terms, in ways that CC doesnt? Also, it is many documents.

 

[Alzrius]

Yeah. Shocking. WOTC is a bureaucracy and has different priorities than you.

Their statement about "we need to take a long time carefully reviewing the older SRDs, since if we don't we might release closed content in them" is nonsense, since there is no closed content in those old SRDs. Hence, that reason deserves to be called out for the nonsense that it is, as does anyone repeating it.

That they're feeding us nonsense because of bureaucratic dysfunction doesn't mean that it's not nonsense.

 

[Alzrius]

Im not sure. Maybe?

The 3e SRD has its OGL with built-in IP protection terms, in ways that CC doesnt? Also, it is many documents.

Once again, I'll upload the entirety of the 3.5 SRD here. Take a look at any of its component documents, save only for the "Legal" one, and notice the very first sentence at the top of the first page.

There's no "maybe" about it.

 

[Alzrius]

There you go being insulting again. Can you stop?

That's no more insulting than mischaracterizing what I'm doing as "complaining." I'll stop when you do.

We can't really rationally scrutinize, IMO, because we don't really know the reasons. That is really the end of the discussion as far as I am concerned.

We can, however, look at their stated reason about being concerned that they might accidentally release closed content, and evaluate that. And any such evaluation can only confirm that said reason doesn't hold up to scrutiny, since there is no closed content in those old SRDs for them to accidentally release when releasing them under the CC license.

We don't know that is reason, or part of the reason, or not the reason as all. We don't know.

Again, they gave us a reason. We can, in fact, evaluate that.

What we do know is: there is still a plan to publish a 5.2 SRD to CC (which many doubted) and review older editions to release to CC.

Which is fine. No one is "complaining" about that. But that doesn't make their other stated reason immune to examination and critique.

Now what bothered me in the statement was no mention of releasing the 5.4 SRD to OGL.

I agree with you there, and said in another thread that I'm hoping they release the 5.2 SRD into the OGL also.

 

[dave2008]

That's no more insulting than mischaracterizing what I'm doing as "complaining." I'll stop when you do.

I actually don't think it is the same. Is there a better word I should use? I am happy to adopt your suggestion.

We can, however, look at their stated reason about being concerned that they might accidentally release closed content, and evaluate that.

Sure, but I think that will lead to poor results. I mean I can think of logical reasons why it takes time, but I am not going to convince you and I don't really think it matters because it would just be my opinion based on incomplete information.

.., since there is no closed content in those old SRDs for them to accidentally release when releasing them under the CC license.

Are you sure of that? OGL and CC are different IIRC. The is no PI in CC, but there is in OGL. Note sure what if any PI (IP) is in the 3.5e SRD

Again, they gave us a reason. We can, in fact, evaluate that.

Sure, but it not really helpful is it?

Which is fine. No one is "complaining" about that. But that doesn't make their other stated reason immune to examination and critique.

Sure, but what is the point?

I agree with you there, and said in another thread that I'm hoping they release the 5.2 SRD into the OGL also.

Glad we agree on something!

 

[MNblockhead]

New Coke was better than old Coke.

This forum platform needs a pitchforks and torches reaction emoji.

 

[Alzrius]

I actually don't think it is the same. Is there a better word I should use? I am happy to adopt your suggestion.

I disagree that it's not the same. But I'd be fine with any non-pejorative, single-word term for "pointing out that something doesn't make sense."

Sure, but I think that will lead to poor results. I mean I can think of logical reasons why it takes time, but I am not going to convince you and I don't really think it matters because it would just be my opinion based on incomplete information.

There's every possibility that WotC's stated reason for why it's taking so long isn't the actual reason. But as you yourself said, that would just be us guessing. So let's take them at their word and evaluate what they actually told us, even if that evaluation necessarily reflects poorly on what they said.

Are you sure of that? OGL and CC are different IIRC. The is no PI in CC, but there is in OGL. Note sure what if any PI (IP) is in the 3.5e SRD

I'll refer you to kenmarable's comment above. The 3.5 SRD isn't formatted the way the 5.1 SRD is, the latter intermingling Product Identity alongside Open Game Content in a manner that the former does not.

Sure, but it not really helpful is it?

Yes, I think it is. As I said, there's merit in pointing out that something which makes no sense makes no sense.

Sure, but what is the point?

That we should critically evaluate what we're told, instead of accepting it without review.

Glad we agree on something!

Likewise.