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

[Reynard]

it’s a more restrictive license, I assume that is what they meant

Because it requires share alike? I guess. But that's the thing that was missing.

Without it, creators lock off content that is clearly derivative of the SRD and they should not be able to do that. And probably can't, in actuality, but (as has been noted many times) it has never actually been tested in court.

 

[bedir than]

Because it requires share alike? I guess. But that's the thing that was missing.

Without it, creators lock off content that is clearly derivative of the SRD and they should not be able to do that. And probably can't, in actuality, but (as has been noted many times) it has never actually been tested in court.

The people declaring "everything should be open" did not do that with their own material built off of more open licenses

There's a certain level in deceit when a proponent of open licenses uses a more closed license while building off of open ones that have been tested in court

 

[Reynard]

The people declaring "everything should be open" did not do that with their own material built off of more open licenses

There's a certain level in deceit when a proponent of open licenses uses a more closed license while building off of open ones that have been tested in court

You need to define "more closed" here since you are making accusations.

And for clarity: it is my belief that if you build a game off an Open SRD (such as the 5.1 SRD under CC) then you should -- because it is the right thing to do -- put your own mechanics/SRD into CC or whatever. The reason I think ORC is the right choice is because it requires this.

 

[mamba]

Because it requires share alike? I guess.

yes

But that's the thing that was missing.

I disagree, ToV uses the CC and does not follow its own ORC license by KP withholding some mechanics from their SRD. If they are so convinced that share-alike is so good and important, why do they force anyone downstream but do not do so themselves?

I’d much rather they used CC than ORC, but if they use ORC, at least release everything. If it is supposedly good for the goose, then it should be good for the gander too. Instead we get rules for thee, but not for me

Without it, creators lock off content that is clearly derivative of the SRD and they should not be able to do that.

they are allowed, that is why the CC allows it. That you do not like that is a separate issue

Btw I see subclasses for ToV on DMsG, I don’t think I ever saw them offer the mechanics for free…

 

[Reynard]

I disagree, ToV uses the CC and does not follow its own ORC license by KP withholding some mechanics from their SRD. If they are so convinced that share-alike is so good and important, why do they force anyone downstream but do not do so themselves?

I’d much rather they used CC than ORC, but if they use ORC, at least release everything. If it is supposedly good for the goose, then it should be good for the gander too. Instead we get rules for thee, but not for me

I completely agree. That's BS and it makes me less inclined to support ToV.

As a point of order, though, it was Paizo not Kobold that spearheaded ORC, and Paizo has in fact released their mechanics under ORC.

they are allowed, that is why the CC allows it. That you do not like that is a separate issue

I am pretty sure that's what I said.

Btw I see subclasses for ToV on DMsG, I don’t think I ever saw them offer the mechanics for free…

I'm pretty sure that's a violation of the DMsG policies.

 

[bedir than]

You need to define "more closed" here since you are making accusations.

A license is more close when you use it and it cannot be ported to other licenses.
It is more open when you use it and it can be used in other licenses.

Open does not equal viral.

ORC is a one way door.
Creative Commons is not.

 

[Reynard]

A license is more close when you use it and it cannot be ported to other licenses.
It is more open when you use it and it can be used in other licenses.

Open does not equal viral.

ORC is a one way door.
Creative Commons is not.

Ok. Sure.

But my issue with.CC is that it does not require users to open the mechanics etc they created as derivative of the SRD. I understand this is by design and that's how the publishers want it.

I just think it is crappy.

 

[bedir than]

Ok. Sure.

But my issue with.CC is that it does not require users to open the mechanics etc they created as derivative of the SRD. I understand this is by design and that's how the publishers want it.

I just think it is crappy.

That's not true of all CC licenses.
One could choose to use the CC SA and it would be viral and open.

Boutique licenses are not both viral and open. And in Darrington's case it is revocable, not viral and not open

 

[Reynard]

That's not true of all CC licenses.
One could choose to use the CC SA and it would be viral and open.

Boutique licenses are not both viral and open. And in Darrington's case it is revocable, not viral and not open

From my perspective, WotC should have released the 5.1 SRD CC-SA. But I know I am in the minority on that.

Darrington's license is intended only to support Darrington. It will be interesting to see if any professional companies actually publish for Daggerheart.

 

[Morrus]

From my perspective, WotC should have released the 5.1 SRD CC-SA. But I know I am in the minority on that.

Darrington's license is intended only to support Darrington. It will be interesting to see if any professional companies actually publish for Daggerheart.

There’s already at least one Kickstarter out there for it.