Draw Steel the MCDM RPG!

[bedir than]

The Draw Steel creators license forbids you from sharing the packet on video (you know, like how Matt made his name).

Draw Steel Creator License — MCDM Productions

www.mcdmproductions.com

It also says that they can change the terms whenever they want.

Finally, they suggest to use their license at your own risk

 

[TiQuinn]

It also says that they can change the terms whenever they want.

But it’s also non-retroactive. How do you exclude something like that?

 

[Zaukrie]

The Draw Steel creators license forbids you from sharing the packet on video (you know, like how Matt made his name).

Draw Steel Creator License — MCDM Productions

www.mcdmproductions.com

It also says that they can change the terms whenever they want.

Finally, they suggest to use their license at your own risk

That is..... something.

 

[mamba]

It also says that they can change the terms whenever they want.

the license applies to this package only, they are still working on it.

Matt also said that if they were to change it, that would only affect new products not retroactively, and at one point he said it might be for their new products only while the previous one still is fine for the the existing ones, so yeah, not final. Not sure why he does not simply use the CC

Finally, they suggest to use their license at your own risk

nothing wrong with that, you basically always do that, that just means he is not your lawyer, you need to educate yourself

 

[aramis erak]

the license applies to this package only, they are still working on it.

Matt also said that if they were to change it, that would only affect new products not retroactively, and at one point he said it might be for their new products only while the previous one still is fine for the the existing ones, so yeah, not final. Not sure why he does not simply use the CC


nothing wrong with that, you basically always do that, that just means he is not your lawyer, you need to educate yourself

There's no "the" in CC... it's a collection of closely related licenses, and it doesn't make carveout easy for one's product identity nor fluff protection. (Not that CC can't have those, but that adds significantly to the layout work.)

The WOGL has that product identity clause, to be adjusted by the devs of the derivatives.
The ORC has a provision for PI as well.

CC's not got a PI clause by default, hence why an SRD under CC is the way to go using CC.

 

[mamba]

There's no "the" in CC... it's a collection of closely related licenses, and it doesn't make carveout easy for one's product identity nor fluff protection.

yes, I am aware. He wants to make the full text available under his license however, only art in the book is is exempt, so he is not that worried about carving something out

CC's not got a PI clause by default, hence why an SRD under CC is the way to go using CC.

agreed, there is nothing stopping Matt from doing so however. I still think he should go with CC-BY, it basically is exactly what he is saying the goal of his license is

 

[tetrasodium]

yes, I am aware. He wants to make the full text available under his license however, only art in the book is is exempt, so he is not that worried about carving something out


agreed, there is nothing stopping Matt from doing so however. I still think he should go with CC-BY, it basically is exactly what he is saying the goal of his license is

IMO CC0 is really the only CC license with a point that is easy to understand the applicability when used for a product without needing to involve lawyers, the rest get a bit lost in the weeds trying to replicate different OSS license models. There are solid reasons for slightly different open licenses to exist with different levels of openness though & here's a pretty decent article covering the notable differences in different OSS licenses for examples.

Open Source Software Licenses 101: The BSD 3-Clause License - FOSSA

Get the lowdown on the BSD 3-Clause open source software license, including key requirements and how it compares to other BSD license variants.

fossa.com

 

[aramis erak]

yes, I am aware. He wants to make the full text available under his license however, only art in the book is is exempt, so he is not that worried about carving something out


agreed, there is nothing stopping Matt from doing so however. I still think he should go with CC-BY, it basically is exactly what he is saying the goal of his license is

Going with CC will NOT clue in most of those wanting to use it, because of CC being a basic Charlie-Foxtrot. And note that CC does NOT require users to open source unless it's a -SA, so on that score, CC-BY isn't what he's going for; he needs CC-BY-SA.
Even most CC advocates can't get it right.

 

[bedir than]

Going with CC will NOT clue in most of those wanting to use it, because of CC being a basic Charlie-Foxtrot. And note that CC does NOT require users to open source unless it's a -SA, so on that score, CC-BY isn't what he's going for; he needs CC-BY-SA.
Even most CC advocates can't get it right.

Yes, but if he did that he couldn't forbid people from sharing things on video

 

[Helena Real]

In case you're interested, last Friday we uploaded our third session into the Patreon packet! This was the last session we did with those rules, and then updated to the Backerkit packet, that has some small but significant changes, especially to my character.