Paizo Posts New Draft of ORC License

A second draft of the Open RPG Creative (ORC) license has been posted by Paizo, incorporating changes based on feedback on the first draft.

This second draft incorporates changes and suggestions from hundreds of participating publishers on the ORC License Discord community, adds significant clarity to key terms and definitions, substantially increases the size and scope of the project’s official FAQ, and introduces several basic quality-of-life improvements across the board.

You can download a copy of the ORC license and its associated FAQ/AxE (Answers and Explanations) document below. Our intention is to solicit “final” feedback on the ORC License Discord until the end of the day NEXT Monday, May 22nd. We intend for this wave of commentary to be the last round before presenting the truly final version of the license, which we plan to release by the end of May.

Our deepest thanks to all project participants. Your feedback has been invaluable in making the ORC License an ideal open gaming license that will serve the community long into the future.

A new era of open gaming is nearly here!

 

[bedir than]

Reading through the redline version of the AxE is a great way to see changes, and to see how they still don't see that they have the concept between CC BY SA wrong in the AxE. You can do the same thing with CC BY SA that they suggest doing with a magazine that has clearly dileneated sections.

I would not use the ORC as advice on other licenses.

I would use it if you want to expand on games built with the ORC explicitly.

Also, sharing the redline work is awesome!
Also also, shifting to Reserved Material and Licensed Material helps clarity quite a bit.

 

[kenada]

Reading through the redline version of the AxE is a great way to see changes, and to see how they still don't see that they have the concept between CC BY SA wrong in the AxE. You can do the same thing with CC BY SA that they suggest doing with a magazine that has clearly dileneated sections.

The section on CC-BY-SA in the AxE is bad. An entire work doesn’t have to be licensed under CC-BY-SA. You can designate which parts are covered and which are not. It should even be possible to use a designation that indicates certain things in a covered section are not covered (e.g., all proper nouns in a special font are uncovered). The problem with that approach is when everyone has their own convention. The value of the ORC License in that case is it provides standard designations and boilerplate along with expectations for what can and cannot be used.

The AxE should emphasize that as the value proposition, but it doesn’t.

I would not use the ORC as advice on other licenses.

I would use it if you want to expand on games built with the ORC explicitly.

I would use it for a new game (and plan to use it for my homebrew system if/when it gets a public release). I prefer copyleft licenses to permissive ones, and having a standard way to designate Reserved Material is very handy (versus establishing a convention or having to publish a separate SRD under a suitable license).

Also also, shifting to Reserved Material and Licensed Material helps clarity quite a bit.

I like this change too because it feels less like legal jargon and more like plain language.

 

[dbolack]

That’s some loaded language. “Not permitting them in the club”? Just use the license which suits you the best. Each is different. There’s no ‘club’.

I suppose it is, but that was the feeling given. Notice, for example, all of the statements of freeloading in this thread.

 

[dbolack]

Exactly. They want to benefit from the work of others, but don’t want others to benefit from their work. Pick a side. Either sharing is good or it’s bad. Don’t take what others are sharing then refuse to share in turn.

This is a huge part of the problem with those discussions. The majority of the opposing side of the argument assumes exactly this, and that's just not the case.

Most of the folks I talked with wanted to use the license for "root" donations, not derivative works and wished to leave fundamental setting-tied mechanics unshared or shared under additional licensing encumberage. This was my case. Other scenarios were new systems that supported their "fluff" that were numerically compatible but otherwise not directly derivative. I'm sure there were others I am forgetting.

 

[overgeeked]

This is a huge part of the problem with those discussions. The majority of the opposing side of the argument assumes exactly this, and that's just not the case.

Most of the folks I talked with wanted to use the license for "root" donations, not derivative works and wished to leave fundamental setting-tied mechanics unshared or shared under additional licensing encumberage. This was my case. Other scenarios were new systems that supported their "fluff" that were numerically compatible but otherwise not directly derivative. I'm sure there were others I am forgetting.

I don’t see this as fundamentally different from what I described. You want the benefit of others’ mechanical work being shared without having to share your mechanical work in turn. Any version of “I benefit from those upstream without benefintting those downstream” is essentially the same argument. All while ignoring the fact that mechanics cannot be copyrighted.

 

[dbolack]

I don’t see this as fundamentally different from what I described. You want the benefit of others’ mechanical work being shared without having to share your mechanical work in turn. Any version of “I benefit from those upstream without benefintting those downstream” is essentially the same argument. All while ignoring the fact that mechanics cannot be copyrighted.

Then you need to reread.

That mechanics may or may not be protected is completely irrelevant.

 

[overgeeked]

That mechanics may or may not be protected is completely irrelevant.

It’s central to the problem. You want to protect something that cannot be protected.

 

[kenada]

This is a huge part of the problem with those discussions. The majority of the opposing side of the argument assumes exactly this, and that's just not the case.

Most of the folks I talked with wanted to use the license for "root" donations, not derivative works and wished to leave fundamental setting-tied mechanics unshared or shared under additional licensing encumberage. This was my case. Other scenarios were new systems that supported their "fluff" that were numerically compatible but otherwise not directly derivative. I'm sure there were others I am forgetting.

Sorry, I’m editing my post after rereading. I was way too harsh. I apologize for that if you saw it.

The ORC license authors are explicit about their intent to create a copyleft license. I don’t think making it more permissive was ever on the table, so I’m not surprised it would get a poor reception. If you want to make a base system with a more permissive license while reserving setting-specific stuff, why not use one that already exists (like CC-BY)? I know Blades in the Dark does that, and I was considering that model before the ORC license was announced.

 

[kenada]

It’s central to the problem. You want to protect something that cannot be protected.

This isn’t settled. There have been a few cases where video game mechanics were found to be sufficiently expressive to qualify for protection. There’s probably a similar boundary for RPGs. Basic mechanics like attack rolls or skill checks? Probably not. Stuff like classes or ancestries? Maybe. That’s where I’d guess the boundary is.

 

[overgeeked]

This isn’t settled. There have been a few cases where video game mechanics were found to be sufficiently expressive to qualify for protection. There’s probably a similar boundary for RPGs. Basic mechanics like attack rolls or skill checks? Probably not. Stuff like classes or ancestries? Maybe. That’s where I’d guess the boundary is.

Computer code is far more intricate than tabletop RPG mechanics. I doubt anything playable at the table comes close. And the only two companies with pockets deep enough to find out also have the most to lose from pressing the issue.