Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Matt Thomason" data-source="post: 8896899" data-attributes="member: 6777331">I agree totally, hence my conclusion that in most cases it's probably best to just draw a line under that 20+ years of work and start afresh, rather than attempting to republish something just to use the new license (if for no other reason than your audience has likely already bought it previously and is unlikely to want a second copy just because you changed the license on it, but also because of the amount of picking apart you'd have to do to excise any possible copyrighted text you no longer had permission to use)That doesn't stop me being sad about the loss of all that OGL material we were collaboratively building together as a community if we start over with brand new ORC works that are not dependent on anything that came before, or hoping there's a better solution to it out there somewhere.&nbsp; Individual publishers announcing their OGL contributions are globally ORC-licensed seems possible, but that comes with the complication of seperating their contributions out from other OGL-only contributions used in their work.I do see the possibility of someone contininuing both with their current OGL product line, and a brand new completely unconnected ORC line - although that's probably beyond the scope of most small 3PPs that consist of a single individual churning out PDFs.&nbsp; But at this point if someone wants to make the move to ORC, I would not suggest trying to port any old OGL material over unless they really, really, really know what they're doing in terms of stripping out anything that could violate copyright.&nbsp; I know I would not be confident doing that myself, so a move to ORC means drawing a line under all the old OGL stuff for me and starting afresh, either with material based on someone's ORC-licensed SRD or creating my own.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Matt Thomason, post: 8896899, member: 6777331"] I agree totally, hence my conclusion that in most cases it's probably best to just draw a line under that 20+ years of work and start afresh, rather than attempting to republish something just to use the new license (if for no other reason than your audience has likely already bought it previously and is unlikely to want a second copy just because you changed the license on it, but also because of the amount of picking apart you'd have to do to excise any possible copyrighted text you no longer had permission to use) That doesn't stop me being sad about the loss of all that OGL material we were collaboratively building together as a community if we start over with brand new ORC works that are not dependent on anything that came before, or hoping there's a better solution to it out there somewhere. Individual publishers announcing their OGL contributions are globally ORC-licensed seems possible, but that comes with the complication of seperating their contributions out from [I]other[/I] OGL-only contributions used in their work. I do see the possibility of someone contininuing both with their current OGL product line, and a brand new completely unconnected ORC line - although that's probably beyond the scope of most small 3PPs that consist of a single individual churning out PDFs. But at this point if someone wants to make the move to ORC, I would not suggest trying to port any old OGL material over unless they really, really, [I]really[/I] know what they're doing in terms of stripping out anything that could violate copyright. I know I would [I]not[/I] be confident doing that myself, so a move to ORC means drawing a line under all the old OGL stuff for me and starting afresh, either with material based on someone's ORC-licensed SRD or creating my own. [/QUOTE]

Verification