Here are some thoughts on this subject that will hopefully address some of the questions/concerns expressed above...
1. It is absolutely possible to extend the 5E data files in substantial ways. For reference, look at the myriad extensions for Pathfinder. The vast majority of Pathfinder 3PP data files, including the material we official sell, is created by the 3PPs themselves. In addition, the mammoth catalog of 3.5E community packs is all user-created. And it's all done without direct access to the raw data files. The same can be readily achieved for 5E.
2. The 3.5E community packs have existed for many years (nearly a decade). They were started back before 4E was even released. So the assumption that community files for 5E would be summarily shutdown by Wizards is not accurate. The first real question is whether the community files violate Wizards' copyright protections. Copyright protects the expression of an idea - not the idea itself - and it is not possible to copyright mechanics (that requires a patent). That means Wizards can absolutely require that users don't re-use the names, images, or complete descriptive text of anything they create - and they should. However, reproducing the mechanics of a particular feat or path is not covered by copyright protection. This means that a community-driven effort is viable, provided that it avoids using protected names (e.g. rename Mind Flayer to something similarly suggestive), omits all images, and paraphrases any descriptions. With those criteria met, I believe the community pack would generally be safe. Disclaimer: I'm NOT a lawyer, but I’ve talked to one extensively about this, and this is my understanding.
3. The other real question, and probably the more important one to Wizards, is whether any community-created data files would negatively impact Wizards’ sales of D&D products. So an important aspect of any community effort would be to ensure the data files don't “compete” against sales of the rulebooks or other products that Wizards is selling. As long as that requirement is met, it’s highly unlikely that Wizards would take exception to the community effort. And if the community data files are structured such that Wizards perceives them as making the game more accessible or easier for players/DMs (i.e. indirectly boosting sales of books), then we’ve achieved a truly symbiotic relationship. That’s the ideal scenario here, and it’s one that I believe is readily achievable. Disclaimer: I’m not privy to Wizards’ thinking on this, but I’m viewing this from the perspective of a business owner.
4. There is no reason for a community effort to go on hold based on the possibility of an official license. We’ve been striving to secure an official license for a very long time now, and the process is fraught with hurdles. Some of those hurdles are now behind us, but others still remain. A big hurdle has been, and will continue to be, expected pricing. Even if we do secure an official license, my assumption is that the required price point will be a barrier for some players, so I believe there’s a place for both an SRD-based community pack AND an officially licensed version of D&D – both through Hero Lab. There will be plenty of users who are happy to pay a premium for all the official text, the images, the simplicity, and the added testing of an “official” version. There will also be plenty of users who are content to use the unofficial community packs and save some money. I think there’s a place for both, and that assumes we CAN secure an official license (far from a sure thing). From my perspective, this means anyone interested in contributing to the community effort should not hold off based on the mere possibility of an official license.
I hope these thoughts prove helpful to everyone when determining whether to contribute to the community effort and how best to realize that effort.
Thanks!
