I watched this video, which makes the argument that the benefit of an Open Gaming license like ORC is that it is singular -- compared to the CC licenses, which not only have different requirements between the four designations, but also there are multiple variations (up to 4.0 currently). But if we end up with a bunch of different ORCs will that benefit be lost?
D&D 5E Creative Commons and D&D
- Thread starter overgeeked
- Start date
We have no way of knowing at this point, and any answer anyone gives is going to say more about them than what WotC might do. Personally, I feel like there is a non-zero chance that WotC is going to try and pull a 4E/GSL with 1D&D, but I have no evidence for that.
I think the outrage will be a lot less if they do try to lock up the next SRD.
A large number of folks who were upset this time (to the point of boycotts and talk of companies lawyering up) is that deauthorizing 1.0a would have had a great affect on games already out there that people started working on under the impression 1.0a was irrevocable. That feeling like WotC was "stealing" something wouldn't be there in this case.
Which is not to say a sizable number of folks still wouldn't be cheesed off.
Yeah. I don't care what WotC does with their future versions of D&D. Would it be better if there was always an Open Gaming movement around the current edition of D&D? Probably. But they aren't required to do it.
Iosue
Hero
We can’t tell until we see the finished license, but presumably ORC will be viral, unlike CC-BY. So if you desire wide dissemination of your work throughout the open RPG community, you’d use ORC. Whereas if you want to keep most of your work confined to your product, you’d use CC.
That, and of course it’s unlikely that WotC will release any SRD through ORC, so if you want to use the 5.1 SRD, at least, you’d do it through CC, or OGL 1.0a, if you still trust it.
Doesn't CC-BY SA do that? I am still trying to understand the basic differences, but according to this video it seems like the share alike aspect emulates the OGL (and presumably ORC) "viral" aspect.
bedir than
Hero
But that isn't the license that Wizards used
Iosue
Hero
In function, yes. In practice? That will depend on what becomes the community standard. If everyone and their sibling is using ORC, and you want to be part of that community, then it behooves you to use that.
Again, this pure speculation, but I suspect ORC will work very much like the OGL, so people will probably feel very comfortable using it. There may be something of a learning curve for the CC licenses that could blunt its spread.
I should also revise my earlier statement. While WotC won’t release SRDs for ORC, as near as I can tell (IANAL), it should be possible to release a product with properly attributed CC-BY SRD content as well as original content released through ORC.
But I can produce a monster book for 5E (as an example) referencing the SRD under CC-BY, but release mine under BY-SA, no? In other words, make my monsters for use with 5E open but require anyone who uses them (in an adventure, say) to make their work share alike.
What I still don't quite understand is the question of identifying what is and isn't covered under the CC license in a given work.
Matt Thomason
Adventurer
That appears to be possible, yes.
Where you would run into problems is if you wanted to keep some of your book closed, or allow downstream licensors to do the same. There we hit the issue of CC not having a concept of "Product Identity" and "Open (Game) Content". It looks potentially doable, but not as easily and definitively as it is with the OGL that includes specific mechanisms to do that.
Yeah, that PI thing seems to be the primary benefit of an OGL/ORC -- along with it being a brand unto itself, of course.
jmhimara
Explorer
One advantage of the OGL over the CC licenses is that it's familiar to the people in the industry. People learned how to use it and trusted the process that it involved. Sure, CC is also easy, but it is unfamiliar to many, and that can be a huge disadvantage. If the ORC is similar to the OGL in that regard, it may carry on that advantage.
Sorcerers Apprentice
Hero
There seems to be some confusion around the term "using CC" in this discussion, it seems like people are using it to mean different things.
"Using CC" either means "including content from the 5.1 SRD that was released under CC-BY 4.0 in your product", or "releasing your product under a Creative Commons license". There might be some other variations I've missed too.
Now that I've written this post I'm not sure if it's useful or just adding further to the confusion.
"Using CC" either means "including content from the 5.1 SRD that was released under CC-BY 4.0 in your product", or "releasing your product under a Creative Commons license". There might be some other variations I've missed too.
Now that I've written this post I'm not sure if it's useful or just adding further to the confusion.
overgeeked
B/X Known World
It’s useful.There seems to be some confusion around the term "using CC" in this discussion, it seems like people are using it to mean different things.
"Using CC" either means "including content from the 5.1 SRD that was released under CC-BY 4.0 in your product", or "releasing your product under a Creative Commons license". There might be some other variations I've missed too.
Now that I've written this post I'm not sure if it's useful or just adding further to the confusion.
People are used to how the OGL works so keep thinking in those terms and it’s hard to stop. CC-BY isn’t the OGL and doesn’t work the same way. The distinction you call out does exist in the CC-BY license although it does not in the OGL.
This is the viral aspect. The OGL has it, CC-BY does not. To use the CC-BY content in no way requires releasing your new stuff under the same CC-BY license.
bedir than
Hero
Would it be reasonable to have chapter and/or subchapter labels of their CC status?
Backgrounds (including content from the 5.1 SRD that was released under CC-BY 4.0 by Wizards of the Coast; CC-BY SA 4.0 from [my company] and non-CC content. Each are noted as appropriate.)
Backgrounds (including content from the 5.1 SRD that was released under CC-BY 4.0 by Wizards of the Coast; CC-BY SA 4.0 from [my company] and non-CC content. Each are noted as appropriate.)
- Acolyte (5.1SRD, CC-BY 4.0)
- Farmer (CC-BY SA 4.0, [my company}
- Glight's Teacher (all rights reserved)
EzekielRaiden
Legend
Honestly, with backgrounds at least, I don't really see much point in reprinting the existing ones. Feats, classes, spells, and races/species, on the other hand, are something I can definitely see wanting to reprint more or less as-is, or with only relatively minor changes.
Backgrounds are so flimsy and ephemeral, you may as well write your own. Most 5e DMs will ignore or invalidate them either way, may as well do something creative.
Enrahim2
Adventurer
I think another thing OGL/ORC provide that CC doesn't is a very easy to use template for how to attribute work from multiple sources. I think there will be at least a period with a lot of confusion among anyone trying to use the CC version of the 5.1SRD regarding how to provide proper attribution - and this will get significantly worse for the first wave of products trying to combine content from the 5.1 srd with third party content attributing 5.1SRD while releasing their own (derivative) work using CC.
bedir than
Hero
The point wasn't Backgrounds but an example of three different rights
bedir than
Hero
Another solution, possibly causing a layout specialist to hate me would be to list appropriate rights on each page
So a big difference between using OGL SRD and CC SRD would be:
1. When writing an OGL supplement you could not reference D&D or the Player's Handbook.
2. When writing a CC supplement you can reference that it is compatible with D&D and you could potentially reference looking something up in the PHB. Maybe even with page numbers? Due to fair use?
Is that correct?
1. When writing an OGL supplement you could not reference D&D or the Player's Handbook.
2. When writing a CC supplement you can reference that it is compatible with D&D and you could potentially reference looking something up in the PHB. Maybe even with page numbers? Due to fair use?
Is that correct?
Similar Threads
- Locked
