The rest of my post you quoted (but didn't actually quote) pretty much summed it up. I am not sure what more information you are looking for.so... it was A wotc but not this wotc cause the emplyees changed over the years?
The rest of my post you quoted (but didn't actually quote) pretty much summed it up. I am not sure what more information you are looking for.so... it was A wotc but not this wotc cause the emplyees changed over the years?
The OGL is completely safe now, because WotC only cares about 5E and selling their own books. Which are now based in the .ore open CC, amd potentially ORC in the future. If they put out oldeEditions under CC and ORC, all the better.People that think the current situation fixes anything are betraying their myopic view that only 5E matters and that the only thing that matters is for them being able to sell their own books. Those people should probably just go sell on the DMsGuild since they aren't actually interested in the Open Gaming community.
You keep saying that as if it were enough for someone to bet their life savings or a second mortgage on their home for.The OGL is completely safe now, because WotC only cares about 5E and selling their own books.
it is in the creative commons, how much more safe can it be?You keep saying that as if it were enough for someone to bet their life savings or a second mortgage on their home for.
I'm not sure how many times I can say it: CC does not do what the OGL was meant to do. First of all, only the 5E SRD is under CC. Second of all CC does not create a pool of open content by default the way the OGL did. It is good if all you want to do is put out your book of monsters or and adventure or whatever. it doesn't preserve or support the Open Gaming community or movement.it is in the creative commons, how much more safe can it be?
Personally I think that is an improvement. If you want your derivative work to be open, you put it in CC. I never liked the requirement aspect (and apparently neither did a lot of 3PP as a lot of stuff as identified as PI). It sill makes D&D open, share-a-like is not not the only definition of open.I was answering a question about why CC was not sufficient. Multiple companies with hundreds or thousands of creators have their core businesses tied to an uncertain license in the OGL. That fact has not changed by the inclusion of the SRD 5.1 under CC, because a) it ignores any and all work not associated with 5E, and b) CC does not allow or require derivate works to themselves be open as the OGL did
The current situation does absolutely fix some things, a lot of things actually. To propose otherwise suggest quite a bias IMO. However, it doesn't fix everything. I think very few people thing that.(yes, yes, someone is going to come in and say the OGL didn't either, but it explicitly did -- in the definitions, specifically -- even if creators tried to pretend it didn't).
People that think the current situation fixes anything are betraying their myopic view that only 5E matters and that the only thing that matters is for them being able to sell their own books. Those people should probably just go sell on the DMsGuild since they aren't actually interested in the Open Gaming community.
I wouldn't recommend that anyone bet their life savings or take out a mortgage to back a TTRPG publication, under any conditions whatsoever.You keep saying that as if it were enough for someone to bet their life savings or a second mortgage on their home for.
Well, yes, the main benefit of the "Open Gaming" community is getting me more stuff for D&D: that was Ryan Dancey's explicit goal with creating it!I'm not sure how many times I can say it: CC does not do what the OGL was meant to do. First of all, only the 5E SRD is under CC. Second of all CC does not create a pool of open content by default the way the OGL did. It is good if all you want to do is put out your book of monsters or and adventure or whatever. it doesn't preserve or support the Open Gaming community or movement.
This is actually getting really frustrating. People that say "they put the 5E SRD under creative commons; everything is fine!" obviously do not see any actual value in Open Gaming. The only value they see is them getting more stuff for their 5E game. They are not thinking about creators or community or the future and extents of the hobby and industry. Which is fine. You are allowed to just want the stuff you want. But don't act like other people are being unreasonable for calling your, or WotC, out. And certainly don't act like the OGL is suddenly not a problem because "obviously" WotC or Hasbro would never try such a thing again.
I'm not sure how many times I can say it: CC does not do what the OGL was meant to do.
To be clear, I meant start a company.I wouldn't recommend that anyone bet their life savings or take out a mortgage to back a TTRPG publication, under any conditions whatsoever.