D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[Jester David]

The OGL is not an all-or-nothing license. You, as the participant, get to declare which parts of a book are Open.

Right. Either things are open or closed. All-or-nothing.

The CC is an all-or-nothing license in and so far as the participant is declaring the entire book to be public domain.

There's six different flavours of Creative Commons with different levels of sharing (remixing or not, commercial or not, and combos).

It doesn't have the same delineation of open & closed in a single book as the OGL but you can allow more fan use (non-commercial) or expansion without revision. I imagine you could have different CC licences for different chapters of a book as needed. But, if you're going OGL/CC you likely want to make your game open and sharable, so this is less an issue.

Other than being able to declare certain sections of a book closed, there's less advantage to the OGL for non-d20 systems. If you're making a d20 game, access to the SRD is invaluable and you'd be foolish not to go OGL. Heck, the OGL might be the way to go for a semi-generic fantasy system, as you easily gain access to common monsters and classes.
Otherwise, the CC gives you more flexibility. And it's just more accessible for non-lawyers and casual creators. There's less active help for the OGL currently.

 

[Wicht]

Right. Either things are open or closed. All-or-nothing.

I'm reading the words you are typing but they don't seem to mean the same things in my head that you seem to think they mean in your head.

And it's just more accessible for non-lawyers and casual creators. There's less active help for the OGL currently.

As a non-lawyer, I don't see that great a difference in the accessibility, personally. Neither one is that complicated of a beast, imo, ymmv.

 

[Wicht]

The first line of the OGL is: "The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc (“Wizards”). All Rights Reserved."

May I inquire as to what rights were actually reserved by that copyright?

 

[delericho]

Don't think so. Mearls sounded like he'd never even heard of sasquatches 5e kickstarter.

Good catch. Scratch that idea, then.

 

[jmucchiello]

May I inquire as to what rights were actually reserved by that copyright?

All Rights Reserved is boilerplate text placed next to a copyright prior to the DMCA copyright update after which it was no longer necessary. But people still do it because lawyers.

The only part of the OGL that is restricted to WotC specifically is they have the ability to create OGL 2.0. No one else can do that.

Right. Either things are open or closed. All-or-nothing.

Have you read the OGL? Half of it discusses the manner in which you can make parts of a work Open Gaming Content and other parts Product Identity. OGC is open. PI is not. So Disney could create a OGL Star Wars game and, assuming no mistakes made, none of the Star Wars IP would become open content. That is the whole point of the OGL. You can release your game and protect your IP and allow third parties to play in your pool without getting involved.

---------------

ACTION system was also released as OGC with no references to a WotC owned SRD.

 

[Wicht]

All Rights Reserved is boilerplate text placed next to a copyright prior to the DMCA copyright update after which it was no longer necessary. But people still do it because lawyers.

The only part of the OGL that is restricted to WotC specifically is they have the ability to create OGL 2.0. No one else can do that.

My question above was largely rhetorical, but maybe that wasn't clear.


Now here is a real question I have - could another party create a license which incorporated OGC from the OGL as being automatically part of the new license?

I recognize there would be little point to actually doing something like that, the OGL is written so there is no point to doing a 2.0 version, but could it be done if there was a perceived need?

 

[Jester David]

Have you read the OGL? Half of it discusses the manner in which you can make parts of a work Open Gaming Content and other parts Product Identity. OGC is open. PI is not. So Disney could create a OGL Star Wars game and, assuming no mistakes made, none of the Star Wars IP would become open content. That is the whole point of the OGL. You can release your game and protect your IP and allow third parties to play in your pool without getting involved.

Right. Open content or closed. That's an either/or choice. A binary decision. All. Or. Nothing.

You can't choose to make it just shareable. Or shareable and open for non-commercial projects. Or usable provided it's not altered. Or completely open for remixing for commercial products.

 

[prosfilaes]

All Rights Reserved is boilerplate text placed next to a copyright prior to the DMCA copyright update after which it was no longer necessary.

The necessity of including a copyright notice in the US was ended with the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 that came into effect in 1989; it was part of the Bueno Aires Convention, but become moot in this regard in 2000 when Nicaragua became the last adherent to that convention to sign the Berne Convention. The DMCA, from 1998, didn't have much relevance to core copyright law.

 

[Mistwell]

The necessity of including a copyright notice in the US was ended with the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 that came into effect in 1989; it was part of the Bueno Aires Convention, but become moot in this regard in 2000 when Nicaragua became the last adherent to that convention to sign the Berne Convention. The DMCA, from 1998, didn't have much relevance to core copyright law.

And yet there remain meaningful benefits to including the notice. Like the availability of statutory damages in some instances.

[Going back to lurking - I should not reply to this thread]

 

[jmucchiello]

Right. Either things are open or closed. All-or-nothing.

Most people use the term "all or nothing" to refer to the WORK as ALL one thing or the other. That was the confusion. And frankly, commercial interests have no interest in the 6 different CC variants. Only those that allow commercial reuse are meaningful. And thus "what is open"/"what is not" is important.

And as pointed out before Creative Commons does not allow you to mix the various CC licenses in a single work. The OGL allows me to claim ZYFNYP as product identity and anywhere it exists in my "open" work, it remains closed. CC licenses grant use to the entire work uniformly.