D&D General Interview with Chris Cocks on D&D AI, the OGL, and more

[mamba]

I'm not confusing it, Chris Cocks is; I'm using the terminology he laid down in his quote.

he mostly used ‘open’ without ‘source’, the only ‘open source’ I found was ‘I think we found a fair and equitable solution to it. You know, if anything, we embraced open source even more.’

Whether you want to say you are intentionally just following his example (he called it ‘open’ a lot more frequently however…) or not, your usage is not accurate. In addition open source is not limited to the viral version either, that is why there is the LGPL (Lesser GPL).

CC is inarguably more open (ie less restrictive) and less viral (ie not at all) than the OGL was - not that the OGL did not contain a giant loophole that effectively made it about as viral as the CC…

If you want to foster an ecosystem of 3pps around your system that does more than provide adventures you are imo better off with an open CC license. I guess we will see how ORC fares

 

[Alzrius]

he mostly used ‘open’ without ‘source’, the only ‘open source’ I found was ‘I think we found a fair and equitable solution to it. You know, if anything, we embraced open source even more.’

Which was the part of his quote that I explicitly called out, and was responding to, in my previous post.

Whether you want to say you are intentionally just following his example (he called it ‘open’ a lot more frequently however…) or not, your usage is not accurate.

See above: his usage is not accurate.

CC is inarguably more open (ie less restrictive) and less viral (ie not at all) than the OGL was

This is factually inaccurate: the OGL is objectively more open than the CC-BY-4.0, as I already outlined before. By not mandating that all derivative mechanics are themselves open, the CC-BY-4.0 is less open. Any suggestion to the contrary is inarguably wrong.

not that the OGL did not contain a giant loophole that effectively made it about as viral as the CC…

I'm not sure what "loophole" you're referring to here, as it was far and away more viral than the CC-BY-4.0.

If you want to foster an ecosystem of 3pps around your system that does more than provide adventures you are imo better off with an open CC license.

Not really, no. If you want to create an ecosystem of open content, then you don't make open content voluntary.

 

[mamba]

If they "couldn't care less' they would have some intern spend 4 hours releasing the 3.5 SRD under CC-BY and be done with it.

not sure what the holdup is either, but saying that they care because the 3e SRD is not under CC yet is very flawed from my perspective

They have zero incentive to go after the OGL ever again, unless they somehow released the 7e SRD under the OGL but not CC

The line that they are "working on it" is BS on its face. And since WotC does not actually publish anything under that era's ruleset, there is no reason not to release it other than active disdain for companies and people that created their businesses under the OGL and the 3.5 SRD.

having the SRD is not really helping all the ones that use non-WotC OGL material. Wasn’t that the argument for why it needed saving the OGL back then?

The OGL is still around, WotC lost all interest in killing it, the CC version will not offer anything you do not already have under the OGL… releasing the 3e SRD under CC is just a sign of goodwill with no actual benefits

I can't do much, but I can refuse to give WotC a single dime until they do the right thing here.

you certainly can

 

[mamba]

This is factually inaccurate: the OGL is objectively more open than the CC-BY-4.0

this is absolutely wrong, per definition the license with fewer restrictions is more open

As I said, you are confusing open with the viral aspect of open source. First you said it was not you but Cocks, implying it was a confusion, and now you are doubling down on… you are still wrong

See above: his usage is not accurate.

and neither is yours, since you have adopted it

I'm not sure what "loophole" you're referring to here, as it was far and away more viral than the CC-BY-4.0.

the loophole of declaring everything IP and sharing nothing, plenty 3pps did just that

Not really, no. If you want to create an ecosystem of open content, then you don't make open content voluntary.

notice which word was absent from my statement… I said it is better for fostering an ecosystem around your product, that ecosystem being open was not required

 

[Alzrius]

this is absolutely wrong, per definition the license with fewer restrictions is more open

The one who is wrong is you, as the license that makes the most material available to the community (with the fewest restrictions) is by definition the most open.

As I said, you are confusing open with the viral aspect of open source. First you said it was not you but Cocks, implying it was a confusion, and now you are doubling down on… you are still wrong

You're confusing the term "open source" (and "viral") with whether or not a license is more open. That Chris Cocks conflated "open" with "open source" doesn't change the fact that the OGL is an objectively more open license than the CC-BY-4.0.

 

[mamba]

The one who is wrong is you, as the license that makes the most material available to the community (with the fewest restrictions) is by definition the most open.

first of all, that is not how open is defined, and second of all, that will be the CC, by virtue of having fewer restrictions (which not so incidentally aligns with the definition of open)

You're confusing the term "open source" (and "viral") with whether or not a license is more open. That Chris Cocks conflated "open" with "open source" doesn't change the fact that the OGL is an objectively more open license than the CC-BY-4.0.

the OGL 100% is less open, but it is somewhat more viral, you cannot get one without the other

 

[Alzrius]

and neither is yours, since you have adopted it

I didn't adopt it, I simply replied to his statement. You're the one who then misapplied that to everything else I said.

the loophole of declaring everything IP and sharing nothing, plenty 3pps did just that

The OGL doesn't allow for this. That a few bad actors did it, and WotC elected to ignore it, doesn't mean it's written into the license.

notice which word was absent from my statement… I said it is better for fostering an ecosystem around your product, that ecosystem being open was not required

Which is all well and good, but separate from the question of fostering a community around open content.

first of all, that is not how open is defined

Yes, it is. You might use it another way, but that's on you.

and second of all, that will be the CC, by virtue of having fewer restrictions (which not so incidentally aligns with the definition of open)

It won't, because that's not a virtue. Letting people take without giving something back is by definition less open than something which requires them to give back to the community.

it 100% is less open, but it is somewhat more viral

It is inarguably more open than the CC-BY-4.0. That's not a fact than you can alter, regardless of how much you say otherwise.

 

[mamba]

The OGL doesn't allow for this. That a few bad actors did it, and WotC elected to ignore it, doesn't mean it's written into the license.

it kinda is, because you absolutely can exempt your IP

It won't, because that's not a virtue. Letting people take without giving something back is by definition less open than something which requires them to give back to the community.

you are simply wrong on this, more open just means fewer restrictions, that includes the restrictions on having to share your product.

If you want to force those products to give back to the community, you enforce the viral / share-alike aspect, but that does not make your license more open. The two are competing goals

Which is all well and good, but separate from the question of fostering a community around open content.

absolutely, that is my point

 

[Alzrius]

it kinda is, because you absolutely can exempt your IP

The ability to declare certain things Product Identity doesn't let you make material derived from Open Game Content cease to be Open Game Content, so no.

you are simply wrong on this, more open just means fewer restrictions, that includes the restrictions on having to share your product.

Again, the one who's wrong is you: more open means that more material is released to the community for anyone to use. The idea that something is more open because its users have freedom not to make stuff open is, by definition, counter-intuitive.

If you want to force those products to give back to the community, you enforce the viral / share-alike aspect, but that does not make your license more open. The two are competing goals

No, they're complementary goals, because the one makes the other more open.

 

[mamba]

Again, the one who's wrong is you: more open means that more material is released to the community for anyone to use.

no, you are simply wrong on this… since you do not believe me on this, just google it yourself…

“The CC BY license is the most open of the licenses and allows for the most re-use.”

Creative Commons Licensing In-Depth – Open Educational Resources: Basics & Beyond

open.ocolearnok.org

“CC-BY or Creative Commons Attribution is considered the most open of the CC licenses.”

LibGuides: Creative Commons Licenses Explained: Most Open

This guide is designed to walk you through the different types of CC Licenses and the benefits and drawbacks of each, so that when it comes to picking a license for your work, you can make an educated choice.

libguides.hartford.edu

and virtually any other site talking about what open means with regard to using open licenses