Many have... but most have simply used the OGL for the basis of their works. And this event might be the catalyst toward what you hoped.

D&D is a strange thing. It's a rulebook, bestiary, and world(s)... but most of the ideas (and mechanics) don't fall under copyright. At the end of the day, most of what WotC actually controls is just the names of the worlds, how they are organized, and specific characters they created.

Many D&D players I know play homebrew that falls completely outside WotC's copyright. WotC will certainly try to lock down their digital community, but I'd wager this will fail as well.

TSR became a very controlling and litigious company toward the end. Seems par for the course that D&D's most recent owner WotC does the same. Absolute power (or the belief they have absolute power) corrupts absolutely.

Indeed. That always weirded me out a bit. In the OGL author's own words, the license was modeled after various open source licenses. It always seems like a red flag to me when a corporation insists on making their own license instead of using the existing FSF, OSI and wikipedia-approved open source licenses (though to be fair, these were lacking in 2000).

In theory it could be a good faith attempt at making a better license, and I'm not saying it wasn't in the case of OGL, but usually it indicates they're up to something, and that something may be too subtle to be understood before it's too late. I guess people outside of the the open source community haven't been burned by these issues..

Then again, it doesn't surprise me, considering how lightly gamers (modders etc) these days hand their stuff over to walled gardens and login-walled platforms with draconian user agreements. I guess they don't just feel the same mistrust and aversion towards corporations that I do. Yeah, I hope it is. People should learn a lesson here.

Wizards still made a bad decision: They went CC-BY rather than CC-BY-SA. The Sharealike part was important to the success of OGL. CC was around when OGL was made, and there are interviews and writings about why they decided not to go with it... including that some CC licenses are sharing-forward and some are not.

Going CC-BY rather than CC-BY-SA, they're allowing entities to create things that are not shared with the community to use freely. This makes compilations, databases, online tools, adventures-that-use-monsters-from-different-sources, things-that-add-on-to-one-another, abandonned-projects-to-be-picked-up-by-someone-else, and more, harder.

I'm certain they intentionally chose non-SA because it causes harm to and confusion among the 3rd party realm and marketplace, both fan/free and especially paid.

Worth noting that CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are compatible, as CC-BY has no restrictions not found in CC-BY-SA.

Therefore, I can take some CC-BY material, add in my own stuff, and release the result as CC-BY-SA.

SA would prevent businesses writing third-party add-ons, because anyone who had a copy would be able to SA without paying the author. For example, if OGL 1.0a had an SA clause, wouldn't that have meant that the entire Pathfinder 1e rulebook would have to be SA?

OGL had the "viral" element to it and had no problems being used to make lots of paid elements.
But the other direction is the problem: Someone can take CC-BY material, mix it up, and release it under no restrictions*. AKA, no special licensed, not open. They've used and then become closed.

This is a big reason why OGL was kept rather than moving to CC 20 years ago. It includes the "open and not open" parts right in there so people easily get it and makers know to do it.

*"no restrictions" in this case is not a good thing.

No it doesn't, at least not to anywhere near the extent that would be needed for your list of things; and you're replying to an example proving that it doesn't. You can redistribute some clearly-marked parts of Pathfinder 1e under the OGL, but you can't scan the entire book and share copies of the entire book.

And the headaches of going through and choosing and using licenses continues. One reason i pretty much dropped trying to use anything other than GPL on my own works a while back for software.

Mhmm. I can see that being a major problem, a trap. With software it was considered larger corporations just taking your stuff wholesale and not giving you a dime. GPL for example though make it so all modifications published had to be under the same license and credit the original coders and code.

More the basics of copyright, that ideas and a number of things can't be copyrighted; However a specific instance/creation of that thing CAN be copyrighted.

Vampire goes to reporter and shares his life's story. - not copyrightable
Interview with the vampire book by Anne Rice - instance of idea and published; Copyrighted

---

Though to note, copyright is more 'who has the rights to copy' for mass production. In the past it was too big a pain to make a huge number of copies yourself, so after the printing press, those 'rights' would be handed to the press and they would make a number of copies while you got paid a portion of each book as profits/earnings. You weren't losing anything because you couldn't possibly do it yourself. But if you went into a library and manually copied a book by hand, it's unlikely anyone would sue you for it.

Today with better technology however, copying a CD takes just a few minutes, burning a few minutes too. Which isn't the problem, the problem really comes when you are selling said copies. And scanning books to put up, well i certainly don't want to rip a book apart, but it is still doable today, given enough time.

Finally there's duration of copyright. Currently under the MickyMouse Copyright Act, it's Life+70 years (and corporations assumed something like 130 years), and if Micky Mouse MAY go into public domain Disney would just extend it another 20-40 years... (or try to anyways, Disney is in financial issues currently). But i think copyright of this method is no longer viable, and should reduce back to the 20 years or so, people are willing to wait that duration and let people have profits. When you want to own everything forever, well then you just flip the bird and give them nothing.

I do hope Copyright length gets reduced in the very near future.

Please reread, including the actual text of the OGL, and some of the OGL statements attached to some Pathfinder 1e products, and then comment again once you have the understanding.

Yes it does. And rtcvb32 mentioned how it went in software space and why the viral component is needed and was included in the OGL.

EDIT: Attached for your convenience, with some highlights added.

Thanks for highlighting those paragraphs. Please read what you highlighted.

The "dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters" in those? Paizo doesn't let you copy them, the first paragraph that you highlighted says that.

The "creatures, incidents, loot that's equipment" from those? Paizo might let you, but the longer list in section 1e doesn't require it. So no, the OGL doesn't let you copy the monsters from the different sources used by the adventure.

rtcvb32 has mentioned licenses that put the whole work under the license - the text you've highlighted points out that Pathfinder isn't under such a license.

If you're not just trolling, identify what "misrepresentations" were in my post.

As for the rest of the discussion, I see you've edited some of your old posts, but you're still claiming that the OGL is "viral" and that WotC made a bad decision "going CC-BY rather than CC-BY-SA, they're allowing entities to create things that are not shared with the community to use freely". So why are you arguing with my counter example that shows OGL did allow entities to create locked, unshared content, so can't be as "viral" as you implied?

Just to be clear, letting entities create locked, unshared content is good in this case - it lets businesses make a profit creating stuff in a scene where the "support as a service" model is handled by the DMs.

OGL is viral. It was also designed to be viral (see any interviews or writings by/from its creators, like Ryan Dancy.) It was modeled after viral software licenses, like GPL.

If you (1h) use (1g -- which includes "distributing" "derivative" material) OGL content, you must include the OGL with it (2, 10). As part of that inclusion, you must cite what you're remixing (6), making sure not to include PI (7). This then makes your work itself OGL-licensed since it's included, which requires you to mark what your PI and OGC are (8). OGC is any game content (1d) and PI can be any fluff content (1e)

No it's not good, neither for companies nor customers. You're failing to understand how the industry works. It's also odd you don't understand how "open" communities work, including the businesses within them. And open licensing in general.

To study, focus most strongly on part 2 of the OGL.

There's your mistake - 1d doesn't cover much game content, and 1e is much more than fluff. All of these and more are in 1e: "dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, creatures, incidents, equipment".