This stance seems to be saying: WotC/Hasbro have to spend time, money and resources on making OneD&D, but they can't profit off of it. That's a pretty rubbish take. Are we really saying everyone is allowed to make money off of the D&D rules other than the people that made them?
Would I love to see OneD&D under an OGL or Creative Commons? Hell, yeah. Is it something they're morally obliged to do? No. Would it make sense for them to do this? Also, no.
The OGL drama wasn't about WotC wanting to get royalties. It was about them trying to roll back an existing agreement, do so in secret, using NDAs to hide it and lying about it later.
If they want a restrictive OGL for OneD&D, that's fine. People just won't use it. But it's not a moral failing to make something and not give it away for free.
It doesn't matter, anyway. 5e is free forever and OneD&D is backwards compatible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I Cancelled my Master Tier Subscription January 12th 2023 because of "OGL" 1.1 - Resubscribed 28th of Jan, now the SRD is in CC-BY-4.0
The point is: you're already betting your business on people agreeing you don't engage in various sorts of conduct. Now, you might trust Wizards less (as their incentives are somewhat different), but that's an entirely separate argument.
This stance seems to be saying: WotC/Hasbro have to spend time, money and resources on making OneD&D, but they can't profit off of it. That's a pretty rubbish take. Are we really saying everyone is allowed to make money off of the D&D rules other than the people that made them?
Would I love to see OneD&D under an OGL or Creative Commons? Hell, yeah. Is it something they're morally obliged to do? No. Would it make sense for them to do this? Also, no.
The OGL drama wasn't about WotC wanting to get royalties. It was about them trying to roll back an existing agreement, do so in secret, using NDAs to hide it and lying about it later.
If they want a restrictive OGL for OneD&D, that's fine. People just won't use it. But it's not a moral failing to make something and not give it away for free.
It doesn't matter, anyway. 5e is free forever and OneD&D is backwards compatible.
I don't think that's necessarily true. They are saying that WotC can't profit off of the core rulebook (other than by printing it and selling it) but that's mostly already true under copyright law anyway. The system itself isn't copyrightable, just their specific art. They can say "this is my fighter." But they can't say "I own all fighters."
How aggressive they are pushing those grey areas will determine, at least for me, how much I actually care about the issue. I suspect that the fact that 5e is now CC is "good enough" that wizards would have a very hard time making the case under a 6e framework, regardless of what they themselves want to do.
The point is: you're already betting your business on people agreeing you don't engage in various sorts of conduct. Now, you might trust Wizards less (as their incentives are somewhat different), but that's an entirely separate argument.
False Equivalence.
How so? For a small business, the difference between "the IP owner won't let me publish this" and "the distribution chain won't let me distribute this" is basically nil, either one is a death sentence.
The point is: you're already betting your business on people agreeing you don't engage in various sorts of conduct. Now, you might trust Wizards less (as their incentives are somewhat different), but that's an entirely separate argument.
False Equivalence.
How so?
Because you're falsely equating publishing a youtube video with publishing a 1000+ man hrs module or lorebook and saying they are obviously the same. Tell you what. Give me $100,000.00, I'll hold it for 6 years and, judge, on a per post basis everything you post from now on. I'll pay you some of that money back over time and, assuming I don't unilaterally end our agreement early (you agree that I can end it at any time, for any reason without complaint or recourse) You might eventually turn a profit.
Even if they publish SRD 6.0 under a more restrictive license, OneD&D will be backwards compatible with 5e/SRD 5.1, so people can just publish whatever content they want under that instead. They will therefore have to make SRD 6.0 extremely enticing if they want to add restrictions to the OGL that will accompany that, and if they fail to do so none of us relying on 5.1 will be impacted. It's a win/win.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah... nah. This is jumping the shark.
This stance seems to be saying: WotC/Hasbro have to spend time, money and resources on making OneD&D, but they can't profit off of it. That's a pretty rubbish take. Are we really saying everyone is allowed to make money off of the D&D rules other than the people that made them?
Would I love to see OneD&D under an OGL or Creative Commons? Hell, yeah. Is it something they're morally obliged to do? No. Would it make sense for them to do this? Also, no.
I Cancelled my Master Tier Subscription January 12th 2023 because of "OGL" 1.1 - Resubscribed 28th of Jan, now the SRD is in CC-BY-4.0
False Equivalence.
I don't think that's necessarily true. They are saying that WotC can't profit off of the core rulebook (other than by printing it and selling it) but that's mostly already true under copyright law anyway. The system itself isn't copyrightable, just their specific art. They can say "this is my fighter." But they can't say "I own all fighters."
How aggressive they are pushing those grey areas will determine, at least for me, how much I actually care about the issue. I suspect that the fact that 5e is now CC is "good enough" that wizards would have a very hard time making the case under a 6e framework, regardless of what they themselves want to do.
How so? For a small business, the difference between "the IP owner won't let me publish this" and "the distribution chain won't let me distribute this" is basically nil, either one is a death sentence.
Because you're falsely equating publishing a youtube video with publishing a 1000+ man hrs module or lorebook and saying they are obviously the same. Tell you what. Give me $100,000.00, I'll hold it for 6 years and, judge, on a per post basis everything you post from now on. I'll pay you some of that money back over time and, assuming I don't unilaterally end our agreement early (you agree that I can end it at any time, for any reason without complaint or recourse) You might eventually turn a profit.
You don't see the discrepancy here? Really?
Even if they publish SRD 6.0 under a more restrictive license, OneD&D will be backwards compatible with 5e/SRD 5.1, so people can just publish whatever content they want under that instead. They will therefore have to make SRD 6.0 extremely enticing if they want to add restrictions to the OGL that will accompany that, and if they fail to do so none of us relying on 5.1 will be impacted. It's a win/win.