Monty of Dungeon Dudes infuriated at publishers writing own licenses instead of CC – WOTC most permissive

I hate call outs that aren’t call outs. You’re talking about Darrington Press, right?
It's not Sly, it's Monty, Sly just posted it here. It's Darrington, it's Shadowdark, it's ORC (ToV and PF2), it probably will be Draw Steel, not sure where Matt is license wise now. As far as I can tell he could have easily used CC (i.e. wants to be as permissive anyway) but is reinventing the wheel anyway
 

log in or register to remove this ad


It's not Sly, it's Monty, Sly just posted it here. It's Darrington, it's Shadowdark, it's ORC (ToV and PF2), it probably will be Draw Steel, not sure where Matt is license wise now. As far as I can tell he could have easily used CC (i.e. wants to be as permissive anyway) but is reinventing the wheel anyway
I think whether it’s Monty’s quote or not, that’s a dodge. He reposted it, he’s bringing it greater attention. Call them out is all I’m saying. If it were WotC, they’d be named already.
 

Monty Martin of Dungeon Dundes:

"Whether or not we do conversions for other systems depends on a lot of variables. Audience size, cost, but also licensing are all issues. I am not enthusiastic about working under viral licenses (such as the ORC) or licenses which are subject to possible changes or revocation. I find it especially galling that after the OGL issue, it turns out Wizards is suddenly the most permissive by releasing their system under Creative Commons. It's absolutely infuriating to me that other publishers are still trying to write their own licenses instead of using the Creative Commons."
Weird hill to die on, but okay.
 

I think whether it’s Monty’s quote or not, that’s a dodge. He reposted it, he’s bringing it greater attention. Call them out is all I’m saying. If it were WotC, they’d be named already.
That's asking someone to put their own interpretation on another person's words, and say that's definitely the meaning... People do that all the time, but to demand that he interpret it for you and state it as gospel, when he isn't the one that actually wrote the post, would be presumptuous.
 

That's asking someone to put their own interpretation on another person's words, and say that's definitely the meaning... People do that all the time, but to demand that he interpret it for you and state it as gospel, when he isn't the one that actually wrote the post, would be presumptuous.
He can clearly refute the second part of my statement if he has a mind to, but asking someone to state plainly about what they quote is not out of pocket.
 



3. Some publishers are happy to use someone else's CC license but then lock their own material behind more restrictive licenses. That seems hypocritical to me.
So much this. We saw a ton of this during the 3/3.5E era - the spirit of an "Open License" is opening things up, not doing everything possible to keep other people away from "your precious material" which you built entirely on something someone else decided to open up.

So... um... I must disagree with Monty on one point... I am a HUGE fan of Viral Licenses (where anything you derive from someone else's Open Content must also be Open). I agree with him that I find licenses that can be changed or revoked problematic.
 

not sure what is weird about it, they want to protect what they create, so ORC is out. Can’t really blame them for that
I am pro ORC. If you took someone else's design in order to create your game, you should give back. I HATE that Monte Cook spent 20+ years feeding off the OGL and refused to give a single thing back to the Open Gaming Community.
 

Remove ads

Top