OGL, ORC, CC or?...
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
I view setting-specific stuff as likely expressive, so I would separate it from the core rules. The core rules would be under CC-BY so you at least have to give me credit while making your own game. Whether I would release the setting-specific material under a license is undetermined¹ right now.
I’m coming at this like I do my open-source work. I generally prefer copyleft, but I’ll throw things under permissive licenses like MIT when I don’t care what people do with it (because it’s trivial) or because that’s what I’m contributing already uses (like nixpkgs).
[1]: I was considering the ORC license for a while, but the way the license changes for Pathfinder Infinite went down left a sour taste in my mouth.
I use CC BY for my material:
The Lazy GM's Resource Document
Lazy GM guidelines and resources for 5th edition compatible and other fantasy tabletop roleplaying games.
slyflourish.com
The Lazy GM's 5e Monster Builder Resource Document
Lazy GM guidelines for building and running 5th edition compatible monsters.
slyflourish.com
CC licenses are the most flexible and widely used of the three licenses in the world. CC is used on billions of products and has been reviewed pretty thoroughly outside of RPGs.
CC BY isn’t also compatible with ORC and the OGL if someone cares to use CC BY material downstream.
Unlike ORC and the OGL, CC BY isn’t a viral license. Downstream users can decide how they want to release their own material even when using your CC BY material. Kobold Press did this with Black Flag. It references the CC BY 5.1 SRD but releases their own material under ORC (I actually have problems with this approach because it’s a bit of a “do what I say, not what I do” position to take).
You can limit what you release under a CC BY by putting only the material you want to release in your CC BY document. This is what I did with my lazy DM work and our Forge of Foes work.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
This strikes me as the biggest reason not to use the CC BY; the "virtuous circle" created by the OGL's viral nature was an excellent way of encouraging the remix culture that's part-and-parcel of RPGs. Going with a license which doesn't necessitate that (it's still an option, but it's an unfortunate truth that there are all too many people who will use open material without making what they derive from it subsequently open) strikes me as a loss for the community as a whole.
BrokenTwin
Biological Disaster
If the issue with CC BY is lack of virality, wouldn't that just be solved by using the CC BY-SA license?
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
I'm given to understand (with the caveat that I'm not very familiar with the SA license) that it mandates that everything be made open, including stuff that was routinely declared Product Identity under the OGL. This includes proper names, storylines, potentially even artwork and maps.
I'm of the belief that content derived from open content should itself be open, but I think it's reasonable for publishers to want to retain control of the material which isn't derivative; if they weren't, we'd never get (as an example) the DC Universe iteration of Mutants & Masterminds, for instance.
mamba
Legend
but then you cannot carve anything out, like art or IP, I believe
You are better off creating a whole separate document, like Kobold Press and WOTC have done, that only includes the material you want to share. That way there's no confusion about what's allowed and what is not.
ORC does allow a publisher to release an entire book under ORC, as Paizo has done with the lateest PF2 revised books, but I don't know anyone else who is doing that. Instead, a separate document helps eliminate any confusion and then you can release the whole document under a CC BY if that's your preference.
Similar Threads
