Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

dndbeyond.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 249 posts

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#201

Post by [deleted] »

cma wrote: post #113
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the outrage from this change came about revoking the license for past works. By putting SRD 5.1 under CC, the situation for many indie creators of working with the SRD becomes clean and clear. Hasbro can do whatever they want going forward with D&D.

Game rules/mechanics usually can't be copyrighted other than just the literal text of descriptions of them. Does this give anything you couldn't have by cloning the rules with different wording flair?

[deleted]

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#202

Post by Aeolun »

nycdotnet wrote: post #185
Aeolun wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m still holding out hope I’ll be able to have a D&D renneisance after I retire (or maybe when the kids are old enough).

look for “D&D Encounters” in your area. This is very common in game stores and they’re designed for drop-in players or first timers to try out D&D. This is how I got back into D&D 10 years back after not having played since the early ‘90s.

Haha, I have no issues finding people to play with, but trying to find a solid block of a few hours of time is impossible.

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#203

Post by bb88 »

TimPC wrote: post #153
pdonis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd assume that they could actually have a far larger market and profit by concentrating on scale rather than treating their products as luxury items I'm not sure that's true. The actual bottleneck with these games is not money but time and interest: you have to have a group of people who all like the same game, and you have to be able to get the group together regularly to play it. There are plenty of people who a…

I left the game as I got older. At the end of the day it just didn’t make sense to spend what magic cost if I could only play a few hours a week. It’s easy to spend over $3600/year on M:TG if you want to play competitively and that just doesn’t make sense to me if I’m getting roughly 100 hours of play in. I could do far better things with over $30/hour for hobbies.

I've enjoyed 3d printing. I'd say it's on par, maybe less. 3d printing miniatures in resin is not that expensive anymore, frankly.

But there is something to be said about games produced by companies that don't rely upon a constant revenue stream (MtG, e.g.) to enjoy.

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#204

Post by throwaway81523 »

godelski wrote: post #195
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's plenty of reasons not to like abstract games. Abstract games are highly, highly dependent on memorization and repetition. In lower tiers a Go or Chess player that's played more games or memorized more positions will handily beat a player who hasn't. The sheer hours needed to get to high level chess play, where memorization doesn't matter as much anymore, is insane. There's a reason most great chess players st…

Exactly this. As an avid board game player this is one of the things that has always frustrated me about chess. Those that like to play have been playing for a long time and there is a steep learning curve. Even the parent was throwing off vernacular. This is not just intimidating to many newcomers but will likely put them off because it is difficult to see yourself make progress. On the other hand, most board games…

If you are new to chess you will probably be a bad player, but it is still fun. I've been at it for decades and I'm still a bad player. I don't mind. I don't memorize much of anything. It's more like math puzzles. I suppose if I studied the right way and had more chess ambition, I'd be stronger than I am, but I don't try to be competitive, so it's fine. It's easy for me to find opponents at about the same level and have enjoyable games. That made a good way to relax after a busy week of work or school, meet other nerds, etc. That was all I wanted from it. I had no dream of becoming a grandmaster or anything like that, so I was happy. YMMV.

Added: Look at some of the PogChamps tournaments on youtube. The players are youtube streamers who are chess beginners and they play horribly, but they are still a blast.

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#205

Post by wolverine876 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #194
wolverine876 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's also not speculation that that was the intent of the original author, they're on record Yes, a corporate executive is on record making a claim like that. Do you take it a face value? This person is a sophisticated actor in a company that runs on IP. It doesn't matter what FOSS licenses said, and I don't have time to look into that. If Wizards wanted "irrevocable", it would say that. Did you see Wizards' attemp…

> Wizards wanted "irrevocable", it would say that It does , that's why when, when they wanted to revoke it without also. casting doubt on their next “irrevocable” license, they relied on the “any authorized version” language, and moved to deauthorize the original version.

>> Wizards wanted "irrevocable", it would say that

> It does

I'm almost certain that it does not. I've read the license, and many attorneys have commented on the word's absence. Can you quote where the license sasys that?

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#206

Post by wolverine876 »

Macha wrote: post #162
wolverine876 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's also not speculation that that was the intent of the original author, they're on record Yes, a corporate executive is on record making a claim like that. Do you take it a face value? This person is a sophisticated actor in a company that runs on IP. It doesn't matter what FOSS licenses said, and I don't have time to look into that. If Wizards wanted "irrevocable", it would say that. Did you see Wizards' attemp…

> Yes, a corporate executive is on record making a claim like that. Do you take it a face value? When there's twenty years of track record and a prior occasion (D&D 4e's GSL) where it would have been advantageous for them to try this, sure. You can't have a legal contract say an ambiguous statement then spend a literal decade promoting one interpretation then switch to another. This is why US laws about detrimental r…

> You can't have a legal contract say an ambiguous statement then spend a literal decade promoting one interpretation then switch to another.

OGL 1.0a isn't ambiguous; I didn't read anything ambiguous and I didn't see anyone point to ambiguity in it.

Elsewhere, outside any license, they did promote another interpretation, but every IP attorney I read said that didn't matter.

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#207

Post by wolverine876 »

miiiiiike wrote: post #178
wolverine876 wrote: post #136

A reminder that the old OGL (the one they say they will now continue with) is still nonsense: According to at least some IP attorneys, it restricts your existing legal rights for little benefit, and in most cases you're better off without it. Here's the EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-h... Also, they claimed they could revoke the old OGL at any time; I assume that hasn't changed.

The OGL is not nonsense. Before today if you wanted to use the SRD, a work protected by copyright, you needed to do so under the terms of the OGL. The 5.1 SRD is now under CC, which is a much better (i.e. less restrictive) license and addresses all of the concerns raised in the linked article.

> Before today if you wanted to use the SRD, a work protected by copyright, you needed to do so under the terms of the OGL.

According to the IP attorneys I read, the SRD entirely/mostly contains uncopyrightable content. Wizards said you needed the OGL to use it, but that is not true. You could use it without a license.

For example:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-h...

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#208

Post by wolverine876 »

notpushkin wrote: post #197
wolverine876 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about material not in the SRD? Read analyses by IP attorneys. OGL 1.0a restricts rights; people have more rights if they just ignore it and don't use it. Here's one from the EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-h...

> Copyright grants an author a limited monopoly over their creative expression. It doesn’t cover bare facts, mere ideas, systems, or methods. Does this mean most software is uncopyrightable?

I don't understand? I assume you know that software can be subject to IP. I don't see anyone say otherwise, except you.

Re: Wizards of the Coast Releases SRD Under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-4.0)

#210

Post by tga_d »

notpushkin wrote: post #197
wolverine876 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about material not in the SRD? Read analyses by IP attorneys. OGL 1.0a restricts rights; people have more rights if they just ignore it and don't use it. Here's one from the EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-h...

> Copyright grants an author a limited monopoly over their creative expression. It doesn’t cover bare facts, mere ideas, systems, or methods. Does this mean most software is uncopyrightable?

Software is an expression of something (an algorithm, layout, etc.). So yes, you can copyright it. What you can't copyright is the underlying principles; e.g., the implementation of Google's search engine is protected by copyright, but the notion of a search engine or page rank is not. If someone wants IP restrictions for that, they need a patent, which has its own set of constraints on what is and is not allowed.

Edit to add: this is also why implementations of software from reverse engineering, like ReactOS, are perfectly legal, so long as they don't copy the actual implementation.

Post reply on HN