WotC 2024 D&D Core Rules Will Be Added To SRD In 2025

The 2024 version of the D&D core rules will be included in an expanded version of the System Reference Document, and available to third parties via Creative Commons (though there is no mention of thr Open Gaming License). The new SRD 5.2 will be available early 2025 after the new Monster Manual has been released.

The new SRD will be localized in the languages which WotC supports.

Regarding the long-awaited SRDs for previous editions, WotC says that they will start reviewing those documents once the 2024 rulebooks are out.

 

[Parmandur]

Returning to this company would be like returning to an abusive ex who said this time I have changed. Sorry, but I have moved on and have found happiness elsewhere but have a nice life.

That's a fairly odd way to think about a toy company: they aren't anyones friends or significant other, it is a conglomerate that manufactures games.

 

[mamba]

In point of fact, you do have to declare what content is OGC in your product (which it presumably has some of, otherwise why are you using the OGL at all?).

I have to declare what is OGC, but I do not have to declare anything as OGC…

Again, the stats are already OGC simply by virtue of them being generated using rules which are themselves OGC. That's not up for debate.

And that I can declare a creature PI is even less up for debate, because the license actually says so

Just because something is in the OGL doesn't mean it's not copyrighted, or gives up copyright.

the whole point of the OGL is to not get sued over copyright… so you will have to sue me over an OGL violation instead

The OGL doesn't absolve anyone of their copyrights, it's just a license that copyrighted content can be used in the manner the license outlines. That's the entire point of the OGL.

precisely

 

[Alzrius]

I have to declare what is OGC, but I do not have to declare anything as OGC…

You do if it's existing OGC and you use it.

And that I can declare a creature PI is even less up for debate, because the license actually says so

Only the parts that aren't already OGC, which the stats are.

the whole point of the OGL is to not get sued over copyright… so you will have to sue me over an OGL violation instead

This statement cedes the argument that declaring a creature's statistics to be Product Identity is an OGL violation.

precisely

Glad you agree with me.

 

[mamba]

IANAL, but I think this is conflating two things

so you are in essence saying I can put a CC-BY text into an OGL document as long as I make clear that this text is not under the OGL or am I misunderstanding that?

You cannot put your new derivative into the public domain as that would mean people using it didn't have to abide by CC-BY on the original.

why can I license it as OGL but not as PD?

I understand why it cannot be PD, because that violates the CC-BY license. The question is why would the OGL terms not do that as well… so I can make it more restrictive but not more permissive because someone who does not want the restrictions can go back to the original CC-BY source and would just have to forego my changes which are licensed more restrictive? So I could put the whole thing under ORC as well?

 

[mamba]

This statement cedes the argument that declaring a creature's statistics to be Product Identity is an OGL violation.

no it ‘cedes’ that if someone thought so and wanted to sue me, they would have to do so for violating the OGL, not copyright, it says nothing about the merits

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I just get a sense of impatience. The 2024 SRD is clearly priority.

Of course there's a sense of impatience. Because it is, in fact, impatience. Being impatient does not mean one is wrong.

Patience is not something they deserve, it is something they have to earn, particularly given how spectacularly bad their past decisions have been.

If they want the benefit of the doubt, they must merit it.

 

[Cadence]

so you are in essence saying I can put a CC-BY text into an OGL document as long as I make clear that this text is not under the OGL or am I misunderstanding that?

That the original CC-BY licensed material you used can be used under just CC-BY and not OGL.

Say you modified it. People who want to use your modification have to use OGL and note that it originated in part with hat CC-BY thing.

why can I license it as OGL but not as PD?

I understand why it cannot be PD, because that violates the CC-BY license. The question is why would the OGL terms not do that as well… so I can make it more restrictive but not more permissive because someone who does not want the restrictions can go back to the original CC-BY source and would just have to forego my changes which are licensed more restrictive? So I could put the whole thing under ORC as well?

I believe that is correct.

 

[Alzrius]

no it ‘cedes’ that if someone thought so and wanted to sue me, they would have to do so for violating the OGL, not copyright, it says nothing about the merits

Which necessarily presumes that you have violated the OGL by declaring the entirety of a creature to be PI, stats and all. Which you have.

 

[Umbran]

This thread has devolved into a bunch of folks who are not IP lawyers arguing over IP law.

Thread closed.