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

[SlyFlourish]

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.

And yet here I am arguing! =D

First, I have good news for you, the ORC license seems right up your alley and other game companies are using it.

Second, here's an example of where it sure feels like a "share alike" license is more restrictive to downstream creators.

Kobold Press's Black Flag uses the 5.1 SRD under the CC, as does the full Tales of the Valiant book. Kobold Press themselves released the Black Flag SRD under ORC but specifically did not include all of their subclasses and some other material. Using the 5.1 SRD under the CC let them decide what to release and what not to release.

But a downstream creator building new TOV compatible subclasses using Black Flag with ORC must release all subclasses they create under ORC. They don't get the same advantage Kobold Press did to back some of their material because of the viral nature of ORC.

If Kobold Press had released Black Flag under a CC BY license, downstream producers could make the same choices Kobold Press made to decide exactly what they want to release and what they want to keep themselves.

I understand we disagree and I don't expect to change your mind but personally, I don't see how a viral license can be considered more "open" than a license that permits the downstream producer to do what they want with it.

It doesn't matter now, but had WOTC released the 5.1 SRD under a CC BY SA license, I would have found it significantly more restrictive and less "open".

 

[Alzrius]

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

This is what's called an argument from authority fallacy, where you cite someone else's opinion and claim that it is somehow the last word on a topic. In this case, that's particularly odd given that the page in question doesn't even talk about the OGL.

“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

See above. Making a fallacy twice doesn't make it any less fallacious.

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

Not really, no. I get that you're attached to this rather peculiar definition of what "open" means, but that's on you.

 

[Alzrius]

I understand we disagree and I don't expect to change your mind but personally, I don't see how a viral license can be considered more "open" than a license that permits the downstream producer to do what they want with it.

I mean, I'm not sure how else to say what I've been saying, which is that "open" is not defined by "let's individual users do what they want with it," but rather by "how much it grants to the community as a whole." In that regard, I can understand why some people might be wary of a license which mandates that absolutely everything used in conjunction with it be open (anything, taken to an extreme, can become bad), but by that same token a license which gives a downstream producer the "freedom" to give back absolutely nothing goes too far in the other direction.

Someone who uses another person's content to make their game, and doesn't see fit to allow for others to do the same with what they've produced (at least in terms of the derivative parts), isn't acting in the spirit of openness.

 

[mamba]

This is what's called an argument from authority fallacy, where you cite someone else's opinion and claim that it is somehow the last word on a topic

it’s only a fallacy if the person in question isn’t an authority, that is why we have experts in the first place… if all opinions were equally valid I might as well ask my mailman for health advice

I am done here, you are wrong and too stubborn to admit it, you rather drag out bogus fallacies than consider the fact that you might be mistaken

Not really, no. I get that you're attached to this rather peculiar definition of what "open" means, but that's on you.

the irony

 

[Alzrius]

it’s only a fallacy if the person in question isn’t an authority, that is why we have experts in the first place… if all opinions were equally valid I might as well ask my mailman for health advice

Sure, but that's not the case with the page you posted, which I'll note again doesn't even talk about the OGL anyway, making it useless as a point of comparison.

I am done here, you are wrong and too stubborn to admit it, you rather drag out bogus fallacies

I'd say this is a much more apt description of your own position, but you do you.

the irony

More than you realize.

 

[Mistwell]

This is what's called an argument from authority fallacy, where you cite someone else's opinion and claim that it is somehow the last word on a topic. In this case, that's particularly odd given that the page in question doesn't even talk about the OGL.

See above. Making a fallacy twice doesn't make it any less fallacious.

Not really, no. I get that you're attached to this rather peculiar definition of what "open" means, but that's on you.

I have no dog in this fight, other than to say you're using the "Argument from Authority fallacy" incorrectly. Citing experts as authorities isn't a fallacy. Ad Verecundiam (Argument from Authority) is "a fallacy when the appeal is to an irrelevant authority and nonfallacious when the appeal is to a relevant authority." Otherwise, as mentioned by Mamba, a virologist's opinion about a virus would be viewed as authoritative as the postal delivery person's opinion on that virus.

In this case, both citations are to actual authorities in those fields. The first is from faculty experts in the field from a published book on the topic form the Council for Online Learning Excellence. The second from faculty of the University of Hartford also writing on the subject. Both are experts in the field, are actual authorities on the topic, and citing to them is not an Argument from Authority fallacy because they are relevant authorities. It would be an Argument from Authority fallacy if you citied either of these experts on the topic of printed circuit boards or the price of tea in China, as they are not experts in either of those fields.

 

[Alzrius]

I have no dog in this fight, other than to say you're using the "Argument from Authority fallacy" incorrectly. Citing experts as authorities isn't a fallacy. Ad Verecundiam (Argument from Authority) is "a fallacy when the appeal is to an irrelevant authority and nonfallacious when the appeal is to a relevant authority." Otherwise, as mentioned by Mamba, a virologist's opinion about a virus would be viewed as authoritative as the postal delivery person's opinion on that virus.

In this case, both citations are to actual authorities in those fields. The first is from faculty experts in the field from a published book on the topic form the Council for Online Learning Excellence. The second from faculty of the University of Hartford also writing on the subject. Both are experts in the field, are actual authorities on the topic, and citing to them is not an Argument from Authority fallacy because they are relevant authorities. It would be an Argument from Authority fallacy if you citied either of these experts on the topic of printed circuit boards or the price of tea in China, as they are not experts in either of those fields.

I'll point out here that you've very conveniently omitted the most salient detail that I pointed out before, which is that neither of those pages talk at all about the Open Game License, let alone contrast it to the CC. Given that the point in contention was that the CC-BY-4.0 is "more open" than the OGL, citing pages that don't talk about the OGL at all to support that point can rightfully be dismissed as fallacies because they're not authorities where the OGL is concerned.

 

[mamba]

I'll point out here that you've very conveniently omitted the most salient detail that I pointed out before, which is that neither of those pages talk at all about the Open Game License, let alone contrast it to the CC.

they don’t have to, they talk about a principle and the point of a principle is that you can apply it broadly, in this case to all open licenses, so you get public domain > CC-BY > OGL > CC-SA in terms of openness

So far you have shown zero evidence and only made assertions. For someone who likes to drag out fallacies whether they fit or not, you should be aware that ‘what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence’, so take your micdrop and shove it

 

[Alzrius]

they don’t have to, they talk about a principle and the point of a principle is that you can apply it broadly, in this case to all open licenses, so you get public domain > CC-BY > OGL > CC-SA

Yeah, no. Their point of comparison is specifically between different CC licenses. Extrapolating it outward based on how you interpret their take on things to say that your point is being supported by them, when in fact they don't talk about the topic in question, doesn't pass the smell test. The OGL is a different license from Creative Commons.

So far you have shown zero evidence and only made assertions.

Which is an accurate summary of your own statement more than mine.

For someone who likes to drag out fallacies whether they fit or not, you should be aware that ‘what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence’, so take your micdrop and shove it

Which means your own fallacious reasoning can easily be dismissed. Maybe next time, when you say you're done with a line of discussion, stick to it.

 

[mamba]

Which is an accurate summary of your own statement more than mine.

no it isn’t, I supported my claim with the two links, you showed zero support for your claim

In a debate you get an F and I get a D, but then I do not really see that more effort on my part is warranted given your poor performance