D&D 5E Compare and contrast CC and OGL

[overgeeked]

Do you want to discuss the differences between the Creative Commons and OGL?

Here you go.

 

[Rabulias]

I am not a lawyer, and while I have read the various OGLs we have seen over the last few weeks, I have not extensively read through the various CC licenses to understand their intricacies. I think that creating products using Open Gaming Content, and sharing it for others to utilize, while maintaining some Product Identity elements in your work, is a little more cumbersome under CC than the OGL 1.0a? I think this may be why ORC is still needed: Combining the Open Gaming and Product Identity rules and conditions of the OGL 1.0a, with the independence from corporate control, true irrevocability, and ongoing legal maintenance to keep the license up-to-date with current contract law that CC boasts.

 

[Reynard]

The one thing that interests me is whether the entire contents of a singular work (a "book" for example) must all be released under the same license. That is, if I create a monster supplement for 5E and release it under CC-BY-SA, can I say in the text that "the statblocks in this book are released under CC-BY-SA but all other text is not"? Or must I release an "SRD" of the stat blocks separately to do that? I have not been able to find a satisfactory answer to this question in the CC FAQs or anywhere else.

 

[bedir than]

The one thing that interests me is whether the entire contents of a singular work (a "book" for example) must all be released under the same license. That is, if I create a monster supplement for 5E and release it under CC-BY-SA, can I say in the text that "the statblocks in this book are released under CC-BY-SA but all other text is not"? Or must I release an "SRD" of the stat blocks separately to do that? I have not been able to find a satisfactory answer to this question in the CC FAQs or anywhere else.

My most common use of various Creative Commons is using photos released under CC-BY SA and other Share Alike versions (usually ones that explicitly permit commercial usage) on blog posts. Using that photo doesn't mean the rest of the blog is under the same license.

You'll see CC art in currently released 3pp books even. That book is not under the same CC either.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Which Creative Commons License?

That's the biggest difference of all. Creative Commons has a variety of different licenses for different purposes, which all work different ways. OGL is one license that only works one way.

Creative Commons is designed for many different use cases, while the OGL is designed around the most common needs of RPG publishers (which does not necessarily mean its the best fit for any given publisher/book)

The biggest value I can see in the CC licenses is that some people outside the RPG industry use and understand them, and that they are maintained by a neutral party that isn't going to try to make alterations for its own benefit.

The biggest value to the OGL is that so much of the RPG industry uses and understands it.

The actual mechanisms of the various CC licenses tend to come second behind those more important factors.

 

[Reynard]

My most common use of various Creative Commons is using photos released under CC-BY SA and other Share Alike versions (usually ones that explicitly permit commercial usage) on blog posts. Using that photo doesn't mean the rest of the blog is under the same license.

You'll see CC art in currently released 3pp books even. That book is not under the same CC either.

I don't understand this. I thought that's what share alike meant.

 

[Enrahim2]

I don't understand this. I thought that's what share alike meant.

My understanding is if you modify or expand on the work, creating a derivative work - then share alike require you to license out that derivative work. Without SA, you can publish the changed work without licensing it out.

It might be a bit confusing, as certain schemes also require share alike merely by including it in the same "package". The likely most (in)famous example is the GPL software open source license. However my understanding is that CC-SA is only requiring SA on the exact derived parts.

 

[bedir than]

I don't understand this. I thought that's what share alike meant.

The photo has been shared. The words written are not