OGL, ORC, CC or?...

[SlyFlourish]

Right, but isn't that what WotC did? They put out an SRD under the OGL that was a subset of their own material (otherwise not released under any license), forcing everyone downstream of them (i.e. using the SRD) to release everything derived from that even though they themselves did not. Just like Kobold Press; or is there a salient detail that I'm overlooking?

Yes! And you're right! The OGL isn't a great license. That's why I'm so much happier with them releasing it under CC BY.

Not the best sales pitch I've ever heard for buying your stuff.

You should! It's great stuff!

 

[Alzrius]

Yes! And you're right! The OGL isn't a great license. That's why I'm so much happier with them releasing it under CC BY.

I disagree that it's not a great license; the fact that it mandates that content derived from open content be itself open makes it superior to the CC BY. That's why I'm sad that WotC won't be releasing the 5.2 SRD under the OGL.

You should! It's great stuff!

Well, I'd prefer to know if I'd be supporting someone who doesn't think content derived from open content should itself be open before I buy it.

 

[mamba]

The little fish cannot decide what's open and what's not, insofar as derivative content goes.

that is not what I said, they can decide what of their content they want to open up

More open content is what creates more options, by definition.

I disagree. Being forced to release what you create for free stifles creators by definition, so there is a balance here. There will be more options with CC for players, they just cannot all be used by 3pps in their products.

To me, a license that gives the most to the community is better, which is what mandated virality does.

no it does not, see above

 

[mamba]

I disagree that it's not a great license; the fact that it mandates that content derived from open content be itself open makes it superior to the CC BY.

that entirely depends on what your goals are

 

[Alzrius]

that is not what I said, they can decide what of their content they want to open up

So long as it's their own content, and not derivative, sure. That part isn't really germane to what's being discussed, though, and so goes without saying.

I disagree. Being forced to release what you create for free stifles creators by definition, so there is a balance here.

Well over ten thousand products created under the OGL to date suggest that this "stifling" effect is minuscule at best, and is most likely completely imaginary.

There will be more options with CC for players, they just cannot all be used by 3pps in their products.

How can there be more options when a lack of open content means that third-party creators have less material to make new products with? Fewer new products by definition means fewer options for players.

no it does not, see above

Yes, it does; see above.

 

[Alzrius]

that entirely depends on what your goals are

My goal is for there to be a healthy and vibrant open gaming community; more open content is the direct way in which this is abetted, and so a license which requires that material derived from open content be itself open is therefore a good thing.

 

[Morrus]

One major publisher who agreed that WOTC's attempt to deauthorize the OGL asked their lawyer what it would take to prove it and the lawyer said "a half a million dollars and a coin flip".

That doesn't track with the advice we got. We concluded that a defence would cost about half that, and have a really strong case. Enough that we decided that we were prepared--and able--to do it on our own if it came to it (but we figured we'd have broad industry support--but we made sure it was something we couple do alone). We still maintain, and will continue to maintain, that the OGL could not and can not be rescinded.

 

[mamba]

So long as it's their own content, and not derivative, sure. That part isn't really germane to what's being discussed, though, and so goes without saying.

it goes back to the little fish and the big fish both having that choice

Well over ten thousand products created under the OGL to date suggest that this "stifling" effect is minuscule at best, and is most likely completely imaginary.

there were plenty of carve-outs, so I’d be careful with that number. I do not see CC having a negative impact on the number of products released either.

The only way to compare this is by taking a look at what is being released now under ORC or OGL vs CC, but you did not want that.

How can there be more options when a lack of open content means that third-party creators have less material to make new products with?

more products equals more options for the players, you are the one who makes it about other 3pps, I do not

Fewer new products by definition means fewer options for players.

there won’t be fewer products but more, a less restrictive license does not result in fewer products than a more restrictive one

 

[mamba]

My goal is for there to be a healthy and vibrant open gaming community; more open content is the direct way in which this is abetted, and so a license which requires that material derived from open content be itself open is therefore a good thing.

for your goal, yes, use a game that is based on ORC as your foundation then

 

[Alzrius]

it goes back to the little fish and the big fish both having that choice

If you use open material to create derivative material, said derivative material should itself be open; one fish being able to choose not to do that is not a good reason why everyone else should be able to.

there were plenty of carve-outs, so I’d be careful with that number.

I'm not sure what you mean by "carve-outs," but if they're in violation of the OGL then that's on them. Of course, from what I've seen, that's a very, very small number of products from an even smaller number of publishers, so you can feel very confident in that number.

I do not see CC having a negative impact on the number of products released either.

That depends on what you mean by "negative." It's still producing open content that other publishers can use, which is good, but letting them keep derivative material close despite being made from open material means that it's not as good as the OGL is.

The only way to compare this is by taking a look at what is being released now under ORC or OGL vs CC, but you did not want that.

No, that's not the comparison. The comparison is you citing all the books that were not made specifically because publishers didn't want all of their derivative material being Open Game Content, which is an unfalsifiable claim.

more products equals more options for the players, you are the one who makes it about other 3pps, I do not

Of course it's about third-party publishers; that's what this entire conversation is about. I said before that it doesn't matter what you do in your home game, because issues of who owns what intellectual property has no impact there.

there won’t be fewer products but more, a less restrictive license does not result in fewer products than a more restrictive one

An open license which produces less open content is providing less material for third-party publishers to avail themselves of, and so isn't as good as a license that results in more open content being produced. That's conducive to more content, though the issue of how many products are made is going to be tied into wider economic concerns, and so isn't the best metric.

for your goal, yes, use a game that is based on ORC as your foundation then

Except the ORC License doesn't let you use what would otherwise be open material from Pathfinder/Starfinder Infinite.