Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rknop" data-source="post: 7753047" data-attributes="member: 20176">Yikes. Their license is a bit of a mess, and their advertisement as an &quot;open source&quot; RPG is a straight-up falsehood.First, I really wouldn't call this an &quot;open source&quot; RPG.&nbsp; It's designed to be as easy as possible to allow people to write compatible material, so, yes, good.&nbsp; However, it does not come anywhere close to the definition of &quot;open source&quot; as its defined in software.&nbsp; The OGL comes much closer.Were it really open source, people could take the text of the Open Legend SRD itself and use it in their own work, potentially modifying it.&nbsp; The CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses allow this.&nbsp; The OGL allows this (with &quot;product identity&quot; limitations).&nbsp; The Open Legend SRD does not.&nbsp; Indeed, it very explicitly says that you can *not* reproduce any of their text.I'm very disappointed that they are calling this the &quot;Open Source&quot; RPG, because that attracted my attention, and will attract the attention of others. But, ultimately, it's a false claim.&nbsp; There's nothing new in what they're doing, and it's far LESS open than D&amp;D 3.0 was 20 years ago, and Fudge was before that.Second, their license seems to be saying that they retain the rights to anything you write.&nbsp; Look at terms 7 and 8:In other words; yeah, they say that anybody can use their stuff to write compatible material but they own the copyrights.&nbsp; Meaning that they are allowed to do anything with what you write, not subject to the limitations that you have on their material.&nbsp; This is *not* open source as represented by something like the GPL, BSD, or Creative Commons licenses.It's a trap.&nbsp; The Open Source is false advertising.&nbsp; I like what they've done and am fine with it; it's an extremely fan friendly IP policy.&nbsp; But it's nowhere near open source, and I really do not like that they are misrepresenting it as such.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rknop, post: 7753047, member: 20176"] Yikes. Their license is a bit of a mess, and their advertisement as an "open source" RPG is a straight-up falsehood. First, I really wouldn't call this an "open source" RPG. It's designed to be as easy as possible to allow people to write compatible material, so, yes, good. However, it does not come anywhere close to the definition of "open source" as its defined in software. The OGL comes much closer. Were it really open source, people could take the text of the Open Legend SRD itself and use it in their own work, potentially modifying it. The CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses allow this. The OGL allows this (with "product identity" limitations). The Open Legend SRD does [I]not[/I]. Indeed, it very explicitly says that you can *not* reproduce any of their text. I'm very disappointed that they are calling this the "Open Source" RPG, because that attracted my attention, and will attract the attention of others. But, ultimately, it's a false claim. There's nothing new in what they're doing, and it's far LESS open than D&D 3.0 was 20 years ago, and Fudge was before that. Second, their license seems to be saying that they retain the rights to anything you write. Look at terms 7 and 8: In other words; yeah, they say that anybody can use their stuff to write compatible material but [I]they own the copyrights[/I]. Meaning that they are allowed to do [I]anything[/I] with what you write, not subject to the limitations that [I]you[/I] have on [I]their[/I] material. This is *not* open source as represented by something like the GPL, BSD, or Creative Commons licenses. It's a trap. The Open Source is false advertising. I like what they've done and am fine with it; it's an extremely fan friendly IP policy. But it's nowhere near open source, and I really do not like that they are misrepresenting it as such. [/QUOTE]

Verification