An Unexpected Victory, Unconditional Surrender, and Unfinished Business.

[SoonRaccoon]

The only difference that I can find between the OGL and CC-BY versions of the 5e SRD is that the CC-BY version lacks this sentence at the bottom of each page.

Not for resale. Permission granted to print or photocopy this document for personal use only.

 

[Enrahim2]

I checked for yuan-ti, beholder, and Strahd. All three are name-dropped in both the OGL SRD and the CC SRD documents, although none of them are stated out.

Item 7 of the OGL denies permission to use product identity except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. It seems to me that the CC constitutes such an independent Agreement.

But if you are using CC you would also have to include the CC atribution. And if you are having to include the CC atribution anyway, it is unclear why you would like to use the OGL version of the SRD at all?

 

[pemerton]

But if you are using CC you would also have to include the CC atribution. And if you are having to include the CC atribution anyway, it is unclear why you would like to use the OGL version of the SRD at all?

I'm guessing the idea is to use the Product Identity name over the top of a stat block or similar that draws on some non-WotC OGC.

 

[Enrahim2]

I'm guessing the idea is to use the Product Identity name over the top of a stat block or similar that draws on some non-WotC OGC.

Still, if you are only using the non-WotC OGC, you wouldnt be bound by the PI declaration of the PI declaration of the OGL SRD anyway? (So indeed you might not even need CC at all, as the PI words typically are not registered trademarks as far as I know? But now we enter shaky ground with regard to derivative work claims I guess)

 

[pemerton]

Still, if you are only using the non-WotC OGC, you wouldnt be bound by the PI declaration of the PI declaration of the OGL SRD anyway?

Suppose that W licenses X (some OGC) to A, via the OGL. A adapts and builds on X to produce Z, which is a stat-block for snake people. Now B want to publish a work which includes Z-ish things, labelled as yuan-ti.

B needs a licence from A: this will be the OGL. To meet the terms of B's licence, A also needs to enter into the OGL with WotC.

If B also enters into the CC licence with WotC, B can use the name "yuan-ti" at the top of their Z-ish material.

At least, I think the above is the sort of thing @Ashtagon has in mind.

 

[Enrahim2]

Suppose that W licenses X (some OGC) to A, via the OGL. A adapts and builds on X to produce Z, which is a stat-block for snake people. Now B want to publish a work which includes Z-ish things, labelled as yuan-ti.

B needs a licence from A: this will be the OGL. To meet the terms of B's licence, A also needs to enter into the OGL with WotC.

If B also enters into the CC licence with WotC, B can use the name "yuan-ti" at the top of their Z-ish material.

At least, I think the above is the sort of thing @Ashtagon has in mind.

Ouch! I was thinking that B would only have to read and adhere to the PI declaration made by A for this case. But I realise now what sort of giant loophole that would have been.

So I guess in order to safely use OGC from sources with several entries in section 15, you would need to read adhere to the PI declarations of all those entries? Using OGL some layers downstream from the root suddenly appear a lot more cumbersome than I thought it to be..

(Not to talk about expensive; some of those PI declarations might be only found in books that are not freely available!)

 

[robconley]

But if you are using CC you would also have to include the CC atribution. And if you are having to include the CC atribution anyway, it is unclear why you would like to use the OGL version of the SRD at all?

For clarity. By using the OGL version of the SRD 5.1 you can say anything based on those rules as open content. Except for a few names in which case you include the CC Attribution and mention that they are PI separately licensed under CC-BY 4.0.

This way for somebody who wants to deal just with OGL 1.0a material, they can remix the vast majority of the text as OGL OGC and as long as they avoid the list of names cited in the PI then avoid the worry whether they need to use the CC Attribution or not.

But to clarify, I consider this situation overall a wash. Use whatever method seems the clearest to you and your readers. I don't think there will be a resolution since this a situation involving mixing CC content with OGL OGC content.

Solution One: Declare only your original contribution (or a 3PP OGC) as open content. And all material including the PI names as CC with proper attribution.

Solution Two: Declare your original contribution, 3PP OGC, SRD 5.1 OGC as open content. Include CC attribution for the PI Names from the SRD 5.1.

The final work is functionally the same but with two different structures as far as licensing goes. Which is better? I think it will be highly circumstantial.

 

[pemerton]

Ouch! I was thinking that B would only have to read and adhere to the PI declaration made by A for this case. But I realise now what sort of giant loophole that would have been.

So I guess in order to safely use OGC from sources with several entries in section 15, you would need to read adhere to the PI declarations of all those entries? Using OGL some layers downstream from the root suddenly appear a lot more cumbersome than I thought it to be..

(Not to talk about expensive; some of those PI declarations might be only found in books that are not freely available!)

The obligation in respect of product identity appears to me to be part of the terms of the licence, and thus to apply in respect of every upstream party from whom the licensee enjoys a licence. Which is, I think, everyone in the section 15 statement - because if you're not receiving a licence in respect of their work, then what are they doing in there?

EDIT: A quirk of the OGL system is that section 15s can get needlessly bloated.

Eg, suppose that W licences X to A, who builds Y out of X; and licences X to B, who builds Z out of X; and then C publishes a work that includes Q derived from Y, and R derived from Z. So C's section 15 identifies W, A and B.

Now D publishes a work that builds on R. In principle, D not not need a licence from A, as only W, B and C have an interest in respect of R. But D does need a licence from C. And under the OGL mechanism, D will therefore list all of C's section 15, including A.

I don't think there's a straightforward workaround for this.

 

[robconley]

EDIT: A quirk of the OGL system is that section 15s can get needlessly bloated.

Agree to a point. Where it gets bad is for works like Tome of Horror which require individual citations for each monster entry you use in Section 15.

'Slight inconvenience is an understatement.

The result leads to declarations like this.

How luckily there are plenty of alternatives like the S&W Monster Book that using only means you have to do this.

However there are classic D&D creatures for which the only OGC source is the Tome of Horror.
Why? Because Tome of Horrors was a special project from the early 2000s handled by a special license between WoTC and Necromancer Games.

Corner cases like Tome of Horrors is why I am pushing for a OGL 1.0b to clarify the situation around the use of OGL OGC content going forward. The OGL OGC landscape is littered with oddball content that resulted from a special arrangement that can be used to assemble a competitor to what Wizards can do that is far closer than many folks realized.

The Old School Renaissance is more aware of this because the core "hack" that allows us to support classic D&D fully relies on these oddball bits of open content. But the OSR isn't the most extreme example of kitbashing OGC content together. That honor belongs to Jason Kemp and Cepheus, a Mongoose Traveller 1e clone. Which was created in the wake of Mongoose bungling the third party licensing program for Mongoose Traveller 2e.

 

[Umbran]

ORC should be finished and embraced. If this happens I dont think any of the requested actions from wizards is in any way "neccessary". Ogl 1.0b is something that actually might be counterproductive, as some might be tempted to use that when they could have used ORC. Adding more SRDs into CC complicates matters with regard to what licence OSR should use without producing any more real security.

Advocating, "everyone should be on one license, and that should be ORC" before even seeing the ORC license seems more about the ORC brand than anything about the game business.

Let creators choose license based on their needs and goals, not our desire to see ORC succeed.

 

[Enrahim2]

Advocating, "everyone should be on one license, and that should be ORC" before even seeing the ORC license seems more about the ORC brand than anything about the game business.

Let creators choose license based on their needs and goals, not our desire to see ORC succeed.

Let me explain a bit better my background for encouraging the use of a single license: OGL1.0a managed something GPL aspired to, but didn't manage. It became a share alike licence dominating commercial creation for an entire industry.

As a software developer, and RPG entusiast, it is striking to see the contrast between the stance of most of the commercial actors with regard to willingness, or even eagerness to provide open source back to the community to build on. And I believe the success of the OGL as a SA license is essential for this mindset.

If the RPG community fractures into a many license situation I forsee the same thing will happen as in software. OGL like GPL will actively avoided by all commercial actors unless they absolutely need something only available there. No other SA initiative will gain significant traction, as there are other alternatives to everything added into any of those schemes. Non SA open licensed content will be provided by non-commercial entusiasts and the biggest players seeking to build a community around their platform. Medium sized commercial actors will exclusively consume content, rather than provide anything back.

The only way I can see us avoid this future is if almost everyone in the industry rally around a single SA scheme, and fill it with valuable content, before the amount of content under non-SA licenses grow to the point that the SA license can no longer compete.

ORC appear to be exactly the kind of rallying cry that might have this potential. Hence I promote ORC. Of course if ORC turn out to be a bad license, my hope for a bright future where the entire hobby balloons due to the effect of such a community license not centered around a single system is lost. I think this is the one shot we have.

 

[Umbran]

As a software developer, and RPG entusiast, it is striking to see the contrast between the stance of most of the commercial actors with regard to willingness, or even eagerness to provide open source back to the community to build on. And I believe the success of the OGL as a SA license is essential for this mindset.

Ah, but RPGs are not software, and don't really need the same level sharing in order to operate well.

In code, when one person finds a way to solve a database injection flaw, it is excellent and essential to share that around to as many as possible. In RPGs, nobody has a data breech because two games solve a problem in different ways.

Indeed, I probably want to see the same problem solved in different ways. Some sharing is good, but go to far and it becomes homogenization, which isn't one of my hopes.

 

[Saracenus]

Ah, but RPGs are not software, and don't really need the same level sharing in order to operate well.

In code, when one person finds a way to solve a database injection flaw, it is excellent and essential to share that around to as many as possible. In RPGs, nobody has a data breech because two games solve a problem in different ways.

Indeed, I probably want to see the same problem solved in different ways. Some sharing is good, but go to far and it becomes homogenization, which isn't one of my hopes.

I, for one, welcome the day our A.I. Lawyer Overlords(tm) deliver us from the madness of reconciling multiple OGC licenses. They can deal with the resulting complexity and we can continue in the Matrix as their batteries... Now what fantasy rpg Matrix simulation am I going to live in...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I, for one, welcome the day our A.I. Lawyer Overlords(tm) deliver us from the madness of reconciling multiple OGC licenses. They can deal with the resulting complexity and we can continue in the Matrix as their batteries... Now what fantasy rpg Matrix simulation am I going to live in...

Reconcile license?

I want out Chatbot AI overlords to write and DM the games for us!

....preferably in a holodeck. That's still a thing, right?

 

[robconley]

Indeed, I probably want to see the same problem solved in different ways. Some sharing is good, but go to far and it becomes homogenization, which isn't one of my hopes.

There wasn't homogenization after the late 2000s. Since then has been a second golden age for RPGs. This is not a subjective opinion either, just looked at what being offered on DriveThruRPG.

What did happen is a D&D related system remained the most popular system with the widest audience. But it doesn't matter what is most popular. We are no longer competing over scarce resources like shelf space, warehouse storage, and the distribution system. If the publisher is smart and handles things well then you get Savage Worlds, Mork Borg, and Fate. If you don't then you get GURPS and Hero System along with dozens of other systems. But even those systems are limping along with new periodic release of new content.

If folks think there is homogenization then they are not looking hard enough. Something I had personal experience with for over 15 years as a OSR publisher (Bat in the Attic Games.

Ah, but RPGs are not software, and don't really need the same level sharing in order to operate well.

In code, when one person finds a way to solve a database injection flaw, it is excellent and essential to share that around to as many as possible. In RPGs, nobody has a data breech because two games solve a problem in different ways.

Not everybody who has something to contribute can write systems. They rather focus on adventures, settings, and other supplemental materials. This is why systems that are open content under open licenses are a benefit. Multiple licenses create friction in trying to support multiple systems as the foundational content needed by an adventure, setting, or supplement may not be available in a given system.

However, with the dominance of a single license like the OGL 1.0a, it is possible to pull together disparate sources to use to cover the gaps and move to one what the author really wants to focus on.

For a great example of this in actions look at Cepheus and its community of creators. Cepheus was welded together by Jason Kemp by using the open content from Mongoose Traveller, Traveller 20, and D20 Modern. Alone each of the three didn't have everything needed to fully suppose a system similar to MgT 1e. Together they did.

 

[Enrahim2]

Ah, but RPGs are not software, and don't really need the same level sharing in order to operate well.

In code, when one person finds a way to solve a database injection flaw, it is excellent and essential to share that around to as many as possible. In RPGs, nobody has a data breech because two games solve a problem in different ways.

Indeed, I probably want to see the same problem solved in different ways. Some sharing is good, but go to far and it becomes homogenization, which isn't one of my hopes.

A single license do not need to mean homogenization in terms of content. OGL did draw a bit in that direction, as D20 got a solid head start with it. But it still had room for wildly different systems like fate and traveler. If ORC is good enough that several publishers are willing to put their wildly different systems in it from the start, I hardly see how the single license should work as a homogenization factor at all.

 

[Saracenus]

Reconcile license?

I want out Chatbot AI overlords to write and DM the games for us!

....preferably in a holodeck. That's still a thing, right?

Didn't know of a short hand way to say, sort out the intricacies of multiple OGC licenses... <shrug> I am not a lawyer... Anyway...

Holodecks are for dabblers, true gamers invest their mind, body, and soul into The Matrix.