OGL, ORC, CC or?...

[Reynard]

If you were (or are!) publishing a small RPG and wanted it to be Open, and assuming ti was not based on or otherwise utilizing a system already under some Open license, which Open format would you choose, and why?

 

[Morrus]

All three. Let the end user choose which suits them best.

 

[bedir than]

All three. Let the end user choose which suits them best.

Do you know what 3pp for A5E are using the most?

 

[KYRON45]

I don’t know the difference. I’ll do everyone the favor of not picking one and then arguing about why.

 

[Morrus]

Do you know what 3pp for A5E are using the most?

I’ve never looked into it.

 

[mamba]

If you were (or are!) publishing a small RPG and wanted it to be Open, and assuming ti was not based on or otherwise utilizing a system already under some Open license, which Open format would you choose, and why?

Morrus has the right answer, if for some reason you limit yourself to one, I'd use CC however

 

[Reynard]

Morrus has the right answer, if for some reason you limit yourself to one, I'd use CC however

Why?

 

[aramis erak]

If you were (or are!) publishing a small RPG and wanted it to be Open, and assuming ti was not based on or otherwise utilizing a system already under some Open license, which Open format would you choose, and why?

ORC... it's designed to cure the two biggest problems of the Wizards OGL 1.0 and 1.0a: (1) the license itself being copyrighted text belonging to WotC, and (2) Wizards having included a forced update provision.

The forced update provision can put new product under a license they didn't agree to, and the license itself being copyrighted text allows WotC to, in theory, nuke the whole OGL by withdrawing permission to use the license and hence the ability to comply with the license terms.

I'm no fan of CC because it's a system of licenses, not a single license. A game's not truly open content if it's under any of the CC NC flavors. And, unless you remember the Share Alike requirement, you can't require users to include them in CC open content.

I would avoid the GNU licenses, as they're generally code-focused, and work poorly for TT games... which is why Mearls pushed for an in-house, more expansive, license.

 

[Alzrius]

The forced update provision can put new product under a license they didn't agree to, and the license itself being copyrighted text allows WotC to, in theory, nuke the whole OGL by withdrawing permission to use the license and hence the ability to comply with the license terms.

Insofar as "withdrawing permission" goes...not really. They tried to put forward that theory a few years ago, and almost everyone was of the opinion that was bunk; while it would take a ruling from a judge to definitively answer, there's widespread agreement that threat was smoke and mirrors more than anything substantive (which makes it a shame, albeit an understandable one, that even that is still too much uncertainty for many publishers to countenance).

But a "forced update provision"? Section 9 of the OGL says that WotC or its agents can release an update, but also says that you can use any version of the license that you want to, updated or not. (Yes, that clause refers to any "authorized version" of the OGL; that does not mean that WotC can simply say that old versions are no longer authorized, since Section 4 makes any instance of authorization perpetual.)

 

[mamba]

Why?

why what, why offer all three? So people can choose what is best for them. Why CC-BY if only one? Because it is the least restrictive