Just a note, the link in the post (at the time of posting) directs to the article on errata and the return of the Sage Advice. The article on the SRD can be found here.

Any update on when the previous edition SRDs will be added to Creative Commons? Particularly interested in what the 4E one will look like.

Woohoo, this is fantastic news!

My question was probably already covered with the SRD 5.1 being in Creative Commons, but what recourse does WotC have if bad actors try to misuse the SRD to make "compatible" content that might hurt the brand by association? Obviously I'm thinking of nuTSR here, being that they were one of the key examples with the OGL lacking such protections, but I can't recall what CC has that provides more of those kind of safeguards.

Quote from PsyrenXY >>

Woohoo, this is fantastic news!

My question was probably already covered with the SRD 5.1 being in Creative Commons, but what recourse does WotC have if bad actors try to misuse the SRD to make "compatible" content that might hurt the brand by association? Obviously I'm thinking of nuTSR here, being that they were one of the key examples with the OGL lacking such protections, but I can't recall what CC has that provides more of those kind of safeguards.

There are two relevant provisions of CC 4.0.  

Section 2(a)(6): No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i).

This gives Wizards cloud cover to say that they do not endorse any specific content, such as that created by bad actors.  It does not give Wizards any real ability to stop the content - but it does give them the ability to strongly condemn any such content.  Practically, I expect this is unlikely to happen - condemnation would elevate the attention of the content and end up doing more harm than good--though a condemnation could come if the bad content was getting lots of press (like, say, if it was created by a major figure in the community, as nuTSR was). 

Section 2(b)(1): Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise. 

 This one is a little more tricky - it does seem to give Wizards some ability to defend their product if the integrity of the underlying content is under attack.  But it also goes pretty far in limiting the ability for Wizards to seek to assert those rights against individuals who are exercising the license in according with the other terms  As far as I am aware, this has not really been challenged in a court, so it would really come down to what a judge would want to do.  But, overall, this is an incredibly weak protection for the original content as, even though it reserves certain rights, it effectively says the original content owner will not exercise them unless the third-party content creator is going beyond the creative commons. 

All told, and with the caveat this post should be construed as an academic legal discussion and not as legal advice, I would say Wizards has very little recourse under the CC--so long as the bad actor follows the rules of the CC and does not go beyond them,  the plain text seems to say Wizards is effectively waiving their right to recourse. 

Quote from PsyrenXY >>

Obviously I'm thinking of nuTSR here, being that they were one of the key examples with the OGL lacking such protections, but I can't recall what CC has that provides more of those kind of safeguards.

They're not really a great example, since lots of the things they were doing weren't permitted by the OGL in the first place. The main thing CC provides is the ability to point to the license and say "not my fault".

The immense library of open content licensed under the OGL is one of the greatest creative resources of the modern era. Using that material in parallel with the Creative Commons license is legally difficult or impossible. WotC's decision to sever D&D 2024 from the OGL by exclusively licensing the SRD 5.2 under the CC license is horrible.

One particularly prominent example of this are the Tomes of Foes. These were released back in the 3E era by Necromancer Games, who obtained a license from WotC to adapt a huge number of 1E and 2E monsters and publish them under the OGL. Because those monsters were now open game content, the OGL could be used to adapt them not only to 5E 2014, but also to OSR and other OGL games.

But the possible examples are endless and varied, limited only by the tens of thousands of creative works licensed under the OGL's share-alike provisions.

I recognize this is too "inside baseball" for people to really rally around. I expect many will reply to say the CC is a "better" license for one reason or another (despite this being irrelevant). Others will proffer "solutions" of legal workarounds that may or may not be legally viable (you really want to bet Hasbro won't take you to court?). This will not fix the problem. And I don't expect WotC to fix it, either.

But this is a tragedy.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from PsyrenXY >>

Obviously I'm thinking of nuTSR here, being that they were one of the key examples with the OGL lacking such protections, but I can't recall what CC has that provides more of those kind of safeguards.

They're not really a great example, since lots of the things they were doing weren't permitted by the OGL in the first place. The main thing CC provides is the ability to point to the license and say "not my fault".

 I can't speak to how great an example they were, since the only place to truly determine they were in the wrong (legally speaking) would be in court, and I don't think it got there. Only that they were pointed to.

I think Caerwyn's response answered my question though I'ma still curious if there's something else there.

(Note also that I'm not trying to have a big legal discussion on this board either but, well, the whole topic is a legal license so there's going to be some overlap.)

Quote from PsyrenXY >>

 I can't speak to how great an example they were, since the only place to truly determine they were in the wrong (legally speaking) would be in court, and I don't think it got there.

It got into court but nuTSR went out of business before it got resolved. However, the grounds for the suit were trademark infringement and use of material that wasn't under the OGL to start with.

is there any info about the SRD for other languages? Will they also release with the 5.2 SRD or on a later date?

@LaTiaJacquise, Sorry that this is a bit off topic but I am hoping you can answer, where do we submit questions for Sage Advice?

Quote from LaTiaJacquise >>

All good! For this first release, the topics of discussion are already gathered. I don’t know if there will be a way to submit questions going forward, but we will communicate that if it changes. 

 Thank you <3

Hm. A few weird drops from the 2014 list of monsters. Missing monsters in 2024 that were in 2014 and still exist in 2024 (or have an exact equivalent that's missing):

• Banshee
• Cyclops (equivalent monster, the Cyclops Sentry, is not in the SRD)
• Flameskull
• Knight
• Nothic
• Spectator
• Twig Blight
• Yeti

Seems like the dueling and protection fighting style feats are omitted? Seems odd to me considering how their equivalents exist in SRD 5.1 and it's not like the concept of fighting with one weapon or protecting allies with a shield is intellectual property.