OGL, ORC, CC or?...

[mamba]

I'm not sure there's any easy way to tabulate that (short of going on a spending spree) let alone verifying what their motivation was.

yes, costs some money to find out, from my limited set of data OGL over CC, and zero ORC, but that is hardly a representative sample

 

[Alzrius]

yes, costs some money to find out, from my limited set of data OGL over CC, and zero ORC, but that is hardly a representative sample

That was the determination that I came to also.

 

[Reynard]

After a bunch of this discussion, my thoughts are leaning toward CC-BY.

Whatever I do, i do not expect to make any money at it. But I want people to play those things. And my interest is primarily in making stand alone adventures: RPGs with bespoke rules meant to be played in an evening or three and are not intended for wider play. And can be literally opened or printed out that night and understood, with no prep. So the systems will be designed with those things in mind, without any expectation of players having access to anything besides dice or a dice roller app.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

If your objective is to maximize the number of people basing their products on your game, then the best license is one which gives them explicit permission to reference your IP, but not copy it. And to my knowledge none of the existing licenses do such.

As for the ORC, it does nothing to prevent anyone from copying mechanics as IP law already permits you to use mechanics not protected by patents and make claims to compatibility. And unlike viral licenses which apply the minute you incorporate work licensed under it, it doesn't apply unless you explicitly agree to it.

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

You cannot license the same work under multiple incompatible licenses.

CC BY isn’t also compatible with ORC and the OGL if someone cares to use CC BY material downstream.

Exactly.

To be clear, if I were to use ORC I can say something like "all text in this document is [open] but not any images, cartography etc..." but you can't do that in CC-BY?

The ORC doesn't cover images and cartography to begin with, only 'mechanics'. And you can very much license different parts of your work differently if you so choose, like putting just the text under CC-BY.

The tricky question is could I force that with ORC? Force the 'character options' open without being able to mess up their IP over the lore and story. If ORC lives up to that, it's what I'd want.

Theoretically that's exactly what it's designed to do. However mechanics are not protected by copyright, so you cannot use copyright licenses to enforce their use.

 

[Morrus]

You cannot license the same work under multiple incompatible licenses.

But you can license it three times separately.

 

[mamba]

And unlike viral licenses which apply the minute you incorporate work licensed under it, it doesn't apply unless you explicitly agree to it.

huh, isn’t me incorporating work licensed under it an agreement to the license? If it is not, what is?

You cannot license the same work under multiple incompatible licenses.

if it is your work, you can make it available, three separate documents, each under one

 

[Kichwas]

Theoretically that's exactly what it's designed to do. However mechanics are not protected by copyright, so you cannot use copyright licenses to enforce their use.

Given that, what is even the point of all these licenses?

What are we passing around in them? Selective opened up lore?

I vaguely remember the old d20/ OGL having a clause against character attribute selection / creation mechanics - but it seems like such a clause, if my memory is right, is actually an example of something they couldn't lock out to begin with.

 

[Reynard]

Given that, what is even the point of all these licenses?

What are we passing around in them? Selective opened up lore?

I vaguely remember the old d20/ OGL having a clause against character attribute selection / creation mechanics - but it seems like such a clause, if my memory is right, is actually an example of something they couldn't lock out to begin with.

"Safe harbor" meaning that if you stick to the terms of the license and what is in the SRD, you are good to go. Go outside that, and you risk having to defend that "you can't copyright mechanics" bit.

Also, note that the d20 License and the OGL were two different things. The former was a brand that identified explicit compatibility, but it came with additional restrictions. it is similar to, say, the Shadowdark license. Shadowdark is based on the 5.1 SRD via CC, but Shadowdark itself is not an Open system and does not have an SRD under any license. But you can create compatible material and even indicate that compatibility with their proprietary license, with limited ability to reprint Shadowdark content (monsters, spell and items, I think).

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I vaguely remember the old d20/ OGL having a clause against character attribute selection / creation mechanics - but it seems like such a clause, if my memory is right, is actually an example of something they couldn't lock out to begin with.

That was the d20 System Trademark Licence.