Black Flag Black Flag Reference Document released by Kobold Press.

[darjr]

Hey everyone, happy to see the discussion!

As publishers, we understand the publishing cycle is a long one. As game designers, we know a lot of people are excited to start designing for Black Flag Roleplaying. This "taster" allows those designers to have a foundational document to start their own design while we finish up the full product. For those of you interested in playing BFR/ToV, this early BFRD release means you're more likely to have additional supplemental material for BFR not long after ToV officially releases next year, allowing you and your group to dive right in with plenty of fun options from us and others.

I quoted you in the OP fyi.

 

[overgeeked]

Hey everyone, happy to see the discussion!

As publishers, we understand the publishing cycle is a long one. As game designers, we know a lot of people are excited to start designing for Black Flag Roleplaying. This "taster" allows those designers to have a foundational document to start their own design while we finish up the full product. For those of you interested in playing BFR/ToV, this early BFRD release means you're more likely to have additional supplemental material for BFR not long after ToV officially releases next year, allowing you and your group to dive right in with plenty of fun options from us and others.

That's awesome. Thanks for putting this out.

Could you talk a bit about how you see the D&D 5.1 SRD CC-BY license interacting with the ORC license and what people publishing using your BFRD are supposed to do re: attribution to avoid problems?

 

[Morrus]

That's awesome. Thanks for putting this out.

Could you talk a bit about how you see the D&D 5.1 SRD CC-BY license interacting with the ORC license and what people publishing using your BFRD are supposed to do re: attribution to avoid problems?

These are questions for your lawyer. Kobold Press can’t give you legal advice. They can merely present the document and the relevant licenses. Their duty is to ensure that they are adhering to any licensing requirements, based on advice from their own lawyers, but they can’t advise you on legal matters.

 

[mamba]

nvm

 

[Cadence]

These are questions for your lawyer. Kobold Press can’t give you legal advice. They can merely present the document and the relevant licenses. Their duty is to ensure that they are adhering to any licensing requirements, based on advice from their own lawyers, but they can’t advise you on legal matters.

"Hi! We invite you to join our new colaborative game building project using the ORC license - that also uses the CC-BY license. If you want to actually use it, go lawyer up!" doesn't seem particularly helpful But I completely understand why.

The ORC AxE at https://azoralaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ORC-AxE.FINAL_.pdf does offer some help though on pages 7-8.

 

[Morrus]

"Hi! We invite you to join our new colaborative game building project using the ORC license - that also uses the CC-BY license. If you want to actually use it, go lawyer up!" doesn't seem particularly helpful But I completely understand why.

The sarcasm aside, there are really good reasons why game companies don’t offer legal advice. WotC doesn’t either. They are not lawyers, and they’re definitely not your lawyers, and while they are happy to let you use their stuff, they’re not happy to be legally liable to you should something go wrong.

We at ENP license our SRD out under various licenses following the advice of our lawyers. But nothing would make me answer legal questions about it. I refer to my lawyers when utilising the license, as should any other end user of the license. And those of us just having an armchair legal debate, less so. You won’t see companies offering legal advice as part of a random forum conversation.

 

[overgeeked]

"Hi! We invite you to join our new colaborative game building project using the ORC license - that also uses the CC-BY license. If you want to actually use it, go lawyer up!" doesn't seem particularly helpful

Mostly because it's literally not helpful.

It's cool they did this, but the other licenses are already out there and explained. How they interact with each other is gated behind a lawyer's fee. Chances are this is going to be a huge barrier for anyone who wants to use this particular document. To the point where it will likely be overlooked simply because "go pay a lawyer to find out how to use it" is a hurdle the other single license SRDs don't have. That's really too bad.

 

[Nylanfs]

That's awesome. Thanks for putting this out.

Could you talk a bit about how you see the D&D 5.1 SRD CC-BY license interacting with the ORC license and what people publishing using your BFRD are supposed to do re: attribution to avoid problems?

It's also addressed in the ORC AxE (Answers and Explenations, ie FAQ)

 

[robertsconley]

Does anyone going from the Black Flag SRD using ORC also need to give attribution to the 5.0 SRD too to honor the original CC-BY on that material? (It kind of feels like they should?)

Yes
From here

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.txt

The basic gist is that anything based on Black Flag must also include the attribution to Wizards. Not hard to fulfill as requirements go.

Section 3 -- License Conditions.

Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions.

a. Attribution.

1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:

a. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:

i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive
attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if
designated);

ii. a copyright notice;

iii. a notice that refers to this Public License;

iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of
warranties;

v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the
extent reasonably practicable;

b. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and
retain an indication of any previous modifications; and

c. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this
Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or
hyperlink to, this Public License.

2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any
reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in
which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be
reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or
hyperlink to a resource that includes the required
information.

3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the
information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent
reasonably practicable.

4. If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's
License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted
Material from complying with this Public License.

ORC Axe has a specific recommendation on how to handle this.

Because the CC-BY licensed content is another source designated to receive attribution, that attribution should be included in the ORC attribution notice.