Quote from: danskmacabre on January 20, 2023, 11:36:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 11:29:39 PM

Lets assume they're talking about their expression, lets also assume they do go through. What does it mean?

Nothing, they're "giving" you something you already have.

I don't know enough about USA copyright or whatever to dispute what you're saying.

I think what they're getting at is anything in DnD that isn't content specific, such as "Melf's minute meteors", "Beholders", "Forgotten realms" and so on is what they've opened up.
I don't know if they can own that core content or not, but they seemed to have bowed under pressure and officially given it up anyway, whether it was theirs to give or not.
In the end, we end up at the same place.  So whether they originally owned it or not, it's irrelevant at this stage.

ONLY IF they go through, remember this is a draft.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 11:38:22 PM
ONLY IF they go through, remember this is a draft.

Well that's true. I think they're trying to sweeten the deal of the poisoned chalice that is the OGL 1.2 .

I expect how this will end will be there's the ORC from Paizo that a lot of people are flocking to, which is a big middle finger to whatever WotC will eventually publish as a new OGL. Will it go to court?  who knows.   

WotC will not budge much on their VTT content locking down (to try and keep/increase DnD beyong subscriptions) and their specific protected content.
But it won't matter that much as it seems many won't use or recognise it anyway.
If the Creative content thing is still there when it goes live, then all the better, whether it's legally meaningful or not.

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 20, 2023, 11:57:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 11:38:22 PM
ONLY IF they go through, remember this is a draft.

Well that's true. I think they're trying to sweeten the deal of the poisoned chalice that is the OGL 1.2 .

I expect how this will end will be there's the ORC from Paizo that a lot of people are flocking to, which is a big middle finger to whatever WotC will eventually publish as a new OGL. Will it go to court?  who knows.   

WotC will not budge much on their VTT content locking down (to try and keep/increase DnD beyong subscriptions) and their specific protected content.
But it won't matter that much as it seems many won't use or recognise it anyway.
If the Creative content thing is still there when it goes live, then all the better, whether it's legally meaningful or not.

Oh, IF they go through it would be a real shame if someone were to make "Nazi Vixens from the Moon" using their expression of the mechanics and in the credits page they put:

"Mechanics CC By Wizards of the Coast" 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2023, 12:05:57 AM
Oh, IF they go through it would be a real shame if someone were to make "Nazi Vixens from the Moon" using their expression of the mechanics and in the credits page they put:

"Mechanics CC By Wizards of the Coast" 

Lol, I was chatting to someone along those lines.
More a what if there were setting based on the "Iron sky" movie using the CC license (probably what you're referring to)? It has Nazis in it, but it's not Pro Nazi, They're defo painted in a bad light, but more a comedy.
It would probably alarm WotC/Hasbro greatly though.

QuoteNo Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing.

So any written adventure that includes a murder mystery is grounds for termination, because murder is illegal and thus not allowed content. Am I wrong here? Strictly speaking, I don't think so.
Also:

QuoteWe have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

Translation: "If we don't like you, we'll invent any bullshit reason to get rid of you, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it because you agreed to this shit." Even if you're a woke company, this should be a gigantic red flag. We all know that the loony left will turn on each other for any perceived indiscretion. No one is safe from this nonsense.

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 21, 2023, 12:10:11 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2023, 12:05:57 AM
Oh, IF they go through it would be a real shame if someone were to make "Nazi Vixens from the Moon" using their expression of the mechanics and in the credits page they put:

"Mechanics CC By Wizards of the Coast" 

Lol, I was chatting to someone along those lines.
More a what if there were setting based on the "Iron sky" movie using the CC license (probably what you're referring to)? It has Nazis in it, but it's not Pro Nazi, They're defo painted in a bad light, but more a comedy.
It would probably alarm WotC/Hasbro greatly though.

It doesn't need to be pronazi, you could make it like Actual Fucking Monsters, where you play the Nazis as the bad guys doing bad stuff.

But probably just including them would cause great Reeeeeeeeee

But it would be glorious if someone made an effort to go for the maximum reeeeeeeeee.

I'm not going to be that someone, because I want to make the games I want to play.

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 20, 2023, 08:11:34 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 08:27:20 AMOf particular note is that "published" has a very specific definition in copyright law. It refers specifically to a set distribution of copies of the work. So a first printing is one "publishing" of the work. A second printing is a distinct "publishing" of the work.

How does that legal definition work in the age of print on demand?

Digital products are still "published" and copyright. Giving the buyer authorization to print their digital book doesn't change that. It doesn't magically change the publication date to the year it was physically printed.

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 20, 2023, 11:11:41 PM
Looks like WotC has opened up the core rules to Creative Commons
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

This excludes stuff like Beholders, etc...

Actually, CC by 4.0 license would apply ONLY to "pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages)"

For those not paying attention at home that EXCLUDES all races, all classes, all spells, all backgrounds (the one provided is stated to be an example), all feats (the one presented is also said to be an example), all magic items, all monsters, all the deities, all the planes...

Basically, it excludes everything except the elements you can't really copyright anyway (i.e. it's the material where there there is no "Concept Stack" protection and rewriting it own words is all it would take to be free and clear of any "specific expression" clause.

It's LITERALLY nothing. Just another hollow PR spin item to make it look like they're not the bad guys they actually are.

ETA: oh, and it excludes the text of the OGL1.0a (because if that's open sourced under CC by 4.0 their ability to revoke it is gone).

ETA2: and yes, folks... that means WotC is absolutely claiming the Cleric class (and their take on barbarians, bards, druids, fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, sorcerers, warlocks and wizards) as copywrighted stacks of concepts.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 12:56:47 AM

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 20, 2023, 11:11:41 PM
Looks like WotC has opened up the core rules to Creative Commons
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

This excludes stuff like Beholders, etc...

Actually, CC by 4.0 license would apply ONLY to "pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages)"

For those not paying attention at home that EXCLUDES all races, all classes, all spells, all backgrounds (the one provided is stated to be an example), all feats (the one presented is also said to be an example), all magic items, all monsters, all the deities, all the planes...

Basically, it excludes everything except the elements you can't really copyright anyway (i.e. it's the material where there there is no "Concept Stack" protection and rewriting it own words is all it would take to be free and clear of any "specific expression" clause.

It's LITERALLY nothing. Just another hollow PR spin item to make it look like they're not the bad guys they actually are.

ETA: oh, and it excludes the text of the OGL1.0a (because if that's open sourced under CC by 4.0 their ability to revoke it is gone).

ETA2: and yes, folks... that means WotC is absolutely claiming the Cleric class (and their take on barbarians, bards, druids, fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, sorcerers, warlocks and wizards) as copywrighted stacks of concepts.

Where did you find that?

And just out of curiosity, have they published the 5.1 srd?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2023, 02:00:02 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 12:56:47 AM

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 20, 2023, 11:11:41 PM
Looks like WotC has opened up the core rules to Creative Commons
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

This excludes stuff like Beholders, etc...

Actually, CC by 4.0 license would apply ONLY to "pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages)"

For those not paying attention at home that EXCLUDES all races, all classes, all spells, all backgrounds (the one provided is stated to be an example), all feats (the one presented is also said to be an example), all magic items, all monsters, all the deities, all the planes...

Basically, it excludes everything except the elements you can't really copyright anyway (i.e. it's the material where there there is no "Concept Stack" protection and rewriting it own words is all it would take to be free and clear of any "specific expression" clause.

It's LITERALLY nothing. Just another hollow PR spin item to make it look like they're not the bad guys they actually are.

ETA: oh, and it excludes the text of the OGL1.0a (because if that's open sourced under CC by 4.0 their ability to revoke it is gone).

ETA2: and yes, folks... that means WotC is absolutely claiming the Cleric class (and their take on barbarians, bards, druids, fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, sorcerers, warlocks and wizards) as copywrighted stacks of concepts.

Where did you find that?

And just out of curiosity, have they published the 5.1 srd?

OGL 1.2 draft https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf
2nd page of OGL 1.2 draft
Introduction to System Reference Document 5.1
MANY WAYS TO CREATE. Dungeons & Dragons content is available to you in many ways:
• The core D&D mechanics, which are located at pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System
Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages), are licensed to you under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). This means that Wizards is not placing any
limitations at all on how you use that content.

5.1 SRD https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf is the CURRENT 5e SRD licenced under OGL 1.0. They purport to 'de-authorise' 1.0 and replace it with a  new OGL.

From Foundry's statement:
"The draft OGL 1.2 license references a separate document, the "Virtual Tabletop Policy", which covers the terms under which virtual tabletops and VTT content for may be offered under the OGL. Unfortunately, this policy is severely flawed.

A crucial issue with this document is that it is a policy rather than part of the legal terms of the OGL itself. As a policy, it may be changed without altering the terms of OGL 1.2. If Wizards of the Coast were to decide in the future that they are not actually "big fans of VTTs", this could easily become a restrictive policy which states that VTTs are not permitted. Just as print publishers have rightly insisted that the OGL must be irrevocable, the rights granted to software projects must also have a secure and trustworthy foundation to justify the investment required to create digital tools."

The full statement can be found here: https://foundryvtt.com/article/ogl12-response-feedback/

So, nothingburgers (a virtually empty set of copyrighted data released under CC by 4.0) and poison pills (VTT policy is not a license and so can be changed at any time at Hasbro's whims... weasel wording on "previously published" instead of "previously created" and deauthorization of OGL1.0a in general) all around in the OGL1.2.

Folks, clearly Hasbro wants what it wants... the utter destruction or submission of the third party OGL industry. Its never going to change its license enough for any other outcome; it's going to just keep trying new ways of presenting their crap deal in the hopes enough of the masses will accept it... and if that's impossible they'll ultimately go "zero percent approval dictator" and impose it anyway because all of us in the ttrpg hobby are just obstacles in the way of "their money."

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 05:16:01 AM
Folks, clearly Hasbro wants what it wants... the utter destruction or submission of the third party OGL industry. Its never going to change its license enough for any other outcome; it's going to just keep trying new ways of presenting their crap deal in the hopes enough of the masses will accept it... and if that's impossible they'll ultimately go "zero percent approval dictator" and impose it anyway because all of us in the ttrpg hobby are just obstacles in the way of "their money."

I think that's right, yup. I think attempts to get them to 'see reason' are futile.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 12:56:47 AM
Actually, CC by 4.0 license would apply ONLY to "pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages)".....................

OK yeah that's absolutely terrible. They may as well not put anything into CC...

Quote from: S'mon on January 21, 2023, 02:40:30 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2023, 02:00:02 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 12:56:47 AM

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 20, 2023, 11:11:41 PM
Looks like WotC has opened up the core rules to Creative Commons
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

This excludes stuff like Beholders, etc...

Actually, CC by 4.0 license would apply ONLY to "pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages)"

For those not paying attention at home that EXCLUDES all races, all classes, all spells, all backgrounds (the one provided is stated to be an example), all feats (the one presented is also said to be an example), all magic items, all monsters, all the deities, all the planes...

Basically, it excludes everything except the elements you can't really copyright anyway (i.e. it's the material where there there is no "Concept Stack" protection and rewriting it own words is all it would take to be free and clear of any "specific expression" clause.

It's LITERALLY nothing. Just another hollow PR spin item to make it look like they're not the bad guys they actually are.

ETA: oh, and it excludes the text of the OGL1.0a (because if that's open sourced under CC by 4.0 their ability to revoke it is gone).

ETA2: and yes, folks... that means WotC is absolutely claiming the Cleric class (and their take on barbarians, bards, druids, fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, sorcerers, warlocks and wizards) as copywrighted stacks of concepts.

Where did you find that?

And just out of curiosity, have they published the 5.1 srd?

OGL 1.2 draft https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf
2nd page of OGL 1.2 draft
Introduction to System Reference Document 5.1
MANY WAYS TO CREATE. Dungeons & Dragons content is available to you in many ways:
• The core D&D mechanics, which are located at pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System
Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages), are licensed to you under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). This means that Wizards is not placing any
limitations at all on how you use that content.

5.1 SRD https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf is the CURRENT 5e SRD licenced under OGL 1.0. They purport to 'de-authorise' 1.0 and replace it with a  new OGL.

Thanks, thought the srd I had was the 5.0 but it's the same.