Bob the World Builder Interviews Kyle Brink

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Only content you release under Creative Commons is released under Creative Commons. Content not released under Creative Commons is not released under Creative Commons.

I think @Retreater means (and I apologize if I'm misreading this) that they're looking for examples of what that looks like. All of the CC language I've seen online (while I was supposed to be working) was an all or nothing deal, rather than specific carve-outs.

 

[bedir than]

Mixing open licenses might not be a great idea. Will have to wait to see what IP lawyers say about that. In the original OGL FAQ mixing open licenses was warned against.

It's pretty easy. Chaosium, iirc has already done it. Plenty of places mix different Creative Commons. You just note which license applies to what.

That's how Microsoft has published a ton of stuff since they they started distroing Linux. There's other examples in software too.

If I were to publish 5e, I would be hesitant to use Creative Commons until I saw how other publishers did it. I have 20+ years of examples of the OGL's implementation - but CC I'd have no idea if I were using it correctly, signing over all my IP to CC, etc.
So I'd want others to lead the way. I'm not going to be the first.

Creative Commons has been used by many, many more people than the OGL. It's been used in billions of creative works to this point.
It's a real, legally tested more open license with a whole world of advice on how to mix and match what you need.

 

[bedir than]

I think @Retreater means (and I apologize if I'm misreading this) that they're looking for examples of what that looks like. All of the CC language I've seen online (while I was supposed to be working) was an all or nothing deal, rather than specific carve-outs.

I have a specific example.
My blog's original header photo was a CC-BY-SA. Using that didn't grant anyone the rights to my original content. I just noted that the header photo was by John Doe, cc-by-sa, with modifications to fit the framing I used.
If someone used that same crop they would have to credit me and John Doe.
They still wouldn't have rights to the words I've written.

 

[Burt Baccara]

How so, I didn’t get that sense.

However, as to why they are stressing CC. I think they pushing that because that is out of their control and it is good PR. It is an action to gain trust, while using OGL does nothing to gain trustz

The OGL 1.0a is out of their control. They can't actually revoke it, it is not for WotC or D&D products only. It was always meant for other systems and has been used as such. They own the copyright to the words of it, and they released it for all to use right in the document.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

It's not.just the slavery thing, it's the overall PG-13 brand identity of D&D that Dark Sun just doesn't quite fit.

PG-13 brand?!?!?! Bawhahahahaha, Tell that to Baldur's Gate 3! It's dueling with subverse for best porn game by full release.

Plenty of D&D stuff that is rate R or higher, including Book of Vile Darkness, book and movie.

And the novels and be as adult in themes as any Game of Thrones novel.

 

[Burt Baccara]

For the game rules, but they're not sticking setting content, named NPCs, and other IP (at least, not on purpose).
Let's say I publish an adventure and put it under the Creative Commons. Does that mean every NPC, story element, etc., is in the Creative Commons? Can anybody just reprint the whole thing or sell PDFs of it? I have no idea, and I'm not going to use it until I see how to do it while protecting my IP.

This, this is might be why. The OGL is spacial in the world of open licenses in that it allows the creator to split content into "open content" and closed content ("product identity" in OGL speak). CC-BY does not do this.

Remember how everyone was upset with WotC adding language to 1.1 that they could use only OGL content, well now they can do that just as easily if you go CC. You can only seperate your contnet if you do an SRD for your open content in CC-BY, and publish your actual commercial stuff without CC-BY. That is a lot of work and messy.

 

[bedir than]

This, this is might be why. The OGL is spacial in the world of open licenses in that it allows the creator to split content into "open content" and closed content ("product identity" in OGL speak). CC-BY does not do this.

Remember how everyone was upset with WotC adding language to 1.1 that they could use only OGL content, well now they can do that just as easily if you go CC. You can only seperate your contnet if you do an SRD for your open content in CC-BY, and publish your actual commercial stuff without CC-BY. That is a lot of work and messy.

Or you could just label your content correctly under the Creative Commons.

This myth that everything is released under the same license is as harmful to the hobby as Wizards attempt to deauth the OGL. Because in this case the lie harms five orders of magnitude more content that's been released under the commons.

 

[Burt Baccara]

Or you could just label your content correctly under the Creative Commons.

This myth that everything is released under the same license is as harmful to the hobby as Wizards attempt to deauth the OGL. Because in this case the lie harms five orders of magnitude more content that's been released under the commons.

Can you point to a source from Creative Commons on how to mix licenses or how to release part of a book (print or PDF), but not all of it?

Calling something harmful without actually addressing the concern is not helpful.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

For the game rules, but they're not sticking setting content, named NPCs, and other IP (at least, not on purpose).
Let's say I publish an adventure and put it under the Creative Commons. Does that mean every NPC, story element, etc., is in the Creative Commons? Can anybody just reprint the whole thing or sell PDFs of it? I have no idea, and I'm not going to use it until I see how to do it while protecting my IP.

I mean WotC doesn’t release any of that to the OGL either so not sure what your point is there. You can control what you do and don’t release to CC, similar too, but not the same as you do with OGL. It really doesn’t take much effort to figure it out. But it is not like you are doing any publish so I’m not sure why you’re worried about it.

The OGL 1.0a is out of their control. They can't actually revoke it, it is not for WotC or D&D products only. It was always meant for other systems and has been used as such. They own the copyright to the words of it, and they released it for all to use right in the document.

nothing I’ve said disagrees with what you said. My whole point is people don’t trust WotC. By pushing CC they are trying to gain trust with action not words.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Can you point to a source from Creative Commons on how to mix licenses or how to release part of a book (print or PDF), but not all of it?

Calling something harmful without actually addressing the concern is not helpful.

CC-BY doesn't require you to release any of your derivative content under CC, just that your work includes a proper attribution for the CC-BY content you're using.

Now, if the SRD was CC-BY-SA (Share Alike) that would make things complicated. but it's not.