Hacker News Reader

Comment by voakbasda | Hacker News Reader

Yup, trust once broken cannot be rebuilt easily. Too many companies make these kinds of bad PR moves, backtrack temporarily, and then quietly deploy their plans after the initial furor dies down. I wager that the winds here will shift back to blow against their customers soon enough. Want us to believe otherwise? An apology would only be the start; they need to swallow a legally enforceable poison pill that prevents such from happening.

View on HN

I mean, they did a huge thing that can't be backed out of, they released SRD 5.1 under creative commons.

Yeah they did some not great stuff, but let's celebrate the successes when we get them!

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.

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

Isn't SRD 5.1 essentially just 5e? Unless they start releasing all the 5.5e/One stuff under the same license I can see them just not releasing that under a permissive license. Of course I could be wrong.

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?

The thing is, compatibility with D&D wasn't necessarily about mechanics. Fundamentally TTRPG mechanics are really just about simulating probability distributions with dice. There's the broader question of how to use a given probability distribution where.

What D&D editions do is develop a set of base mechanics, basic probability distributions, and then create a framework on how to apply them. This includes monsters, races, and classes which have particular attributes or play feel. This includes common roleplaying conflicts and guidance on how to adjudicate them. What a lot of indie RPGs that used OGL 1.0/a did is they made references to things from D&D and used them in ways inspired by D&D. Think "elves" or "faeries" being associated with the mechanics and tropes you'd expect. Now with the new CC-BY-SA 5.1 SRD, you can make explicit references to Elves in derivative works and also license it under CC-BY-SA.

There were always completely separate systems that borrowed nothing from the play feel/world of D&D. Those communities/creators had nothing to fear.

Ah thanks, I had thought the core thing was content agnostic.

"can't be copyrighted" may be true in the ideal, but there's plenty of haziness around the edges. The particular coloring of each type of dragon is mechanically unimportant, but is a nice mnemonic for the type of breath weapon damage they do. Is dragon coloring function or flavor? If you're a small publisher, you don't have the lawyers to compete with Hasbro in court long enough to find out.

SRD 5.1 doesn't include character creation rules or feats, so it's not even enough from just the PHB/DMG to play. But it's most of what you need, and the what's left can be easily replaced.

The CC grant from the draft OGL 1.2 announcement was much less - it didn't include classes, spells, or creatures. Opening the entire SRD under CC BY makes cloning 5E trivial.

I genuinely think this is WotC giving up on 5.5/One being open. They're going to double down on the Dungeon Master's Guild and its IP-friendly, Hasbro-owned license as the way to create and distribute fan content.

Paizo's seen the target on their back now, I doubt they're going to halt their plans to produce the ORC. I suspect the only way WoTC will be able to get any trust back in the community is to sign on with that

>legally enforceable poison pill

This seems somewhat unlikely IMO. WotC is a subsidiary of Hasbro, a publicly traded company.

Measures that can be potentially interpreted as restrictive on shareholders' profits seem quite difficult to pass.

In this case, such a measure actually might help insure continued shareholder profits, by preventing a mass exodus of gamers from their ecosystem. In fact, I would say failing to take such measures might present an existential threat to WoTC, due to the trust that has already been lost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com