Dire Bare
Legend
Broken promises? Please.It makes me wonder about the broken promises for the 3.x OGLs done by end of 2023 might be intentionally unprioritizing.
Missed deadlines? Sure. I miss deadlines all the time, it happens.
Broken promises? Please.It makes me wonder about the broken promises for the 3.x OGLs done by end of 2023 might be intentionally unprioritizing.
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.Broken promises? Please.
Missed deadlines? Sure. I miss deadlines all the time, it happens.
Attached is a copy of the 3.5 SRD in its entirety.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?
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.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?
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.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.
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.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 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?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.
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.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?
What names, specifically, are in the 3.5 SRD that WotC would be worried about releasing?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
You missed my point.You do know that D&D Beyond has free accounts, right?
Expecting people to understand the differences between the CC and OGL are where we differ.since there's no IP in them that WotC hasn't already released for decades now