D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[jmucchiello]

The necessity of including a copyright notice in the US was ended with the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 that came into effect in 1989; it was part of the Bueno Aires Convention, but become moot in this regard in 2000 when Nicaragua became the last adherent to that convention to sign the Berne Convention. The DMCA, from 1998, didn't have much relevance to core copyright law.

Thanks. I misremembered when "All Right Reserved" was removed.

 

[prosfilaes]

And as pointed out before Creative Commons does not allow you to mix the various CC licenses in a single work. The OGL allows me to claim ZYFNYP as product identity and anywhere it exists in my "open" work, it remains closed. CC licenses grant use to the entire work uniformly.

If you use the CC-BY on a work, like FATE does, someone can base a work on that and use whatever license they want, as long as they provide the attribution the CC-BY requires. WotC could have licensed the SRD under the CC-BY and used whatever license they wanted on their books, and others could have used on whatever licenses they wanted on their books using the SRD, as long as they credited WotC as requested.

 

[Wicht]

If you use the CC-BY on a work, like FATE does, someone can base a work on that and use whatever license they want, as long as they provide the attribution the CC-BY requires. WotC could have licensed the SRD under the CC-BY and used whatever license they wanted on their books, and others could have used on whatever licenses they wanted on their books using the SRD, as long as they credited WotC as requested.

I feel like there are two different conversations talking past each other. I am not sure what your response has to do with what you are responding to.

 

[Jester David]

And frankly, commercial interests have no interest in the 6 different CC variants. Only those that allow commercial reuse are meaningful. And thus "what is open"/"what is not" is important.

Well, that's not true.
Publishers releasing derivative content might only care about commercial reuse, but that's not the only people who might use a CC licence.
If releasing a game system under CC, a noncommercial licence that allows derivatives allows fan content (adventures, accessories). And just being able to freely distribute would also be handy. For example, WotC could have released the Basic Rules under BY-NC-ND allowing the rules to be freely spread across the web but limiting derivation and expansion. It would clear up the legality of the Basic Rules pretty effortlessly.

And as pointed out before Creative Commons does not allow you to mix the various CC licenses in a single work. The OGL allows me to claim ZYFNYP as product identity and anywhere it exists in my "open" work, it remains closed. CC licenses grant use to the entire work uniformly.

Out of curiosity, do you have a link that confirms that? I've been looking for confirmation of my thought and cannot find one.
But, even if you can't mix licences, you could do something like a separate PDF released under a different licence than other products. You can mix-and-match licences with every release. So a game publisher could have their setting under a restrictive licence, their expansions under non-commercial licence, the rules document under a licence that allows everything.

 

[Wicht]

Out of curiosity, do you have a link that confirms that?

It seems pretty clear from my readings that this is how the CC license works.

And you can only mix and match licenses if someone does not use a Share-alike CC license, but I'll assume you already knew that.

When all is said and done, I think that the conclusion is: the OGL is the superior and easier license for protecting IP while making a system open. Which is probably why publishers tend to want to use it over the CC, even if they are not using the SRD. As someone else said, its going to be about what you want to get out of the license you choose to use.

 

[Nylanfs]

I should get Adam Jury to make an appearance in here since Posthuman is using CC.

 

[prosfilaes]

I feel like there are two different conversations talking past each other. I am not sure what your response has to do with what you are responding to.

If you want to have Product Identity, you don't put it in the SRD. That solves that problem. The CC-BY works very well in the case that you have a base document that everyone can extend with whatever they want, and the CC-BY-SA works very well in the case that you don't particularly want other people extending the system with Product Identity. (A CC-BY-SA Traveller would have not had the problem with the dead sectors, where some company built their worlds and disappeared, and nobody wants to obsolete their work but nobody can legally reuse it.) As I've said, I think the OGL failed in meaningfully compelling users to return anything useful to the collective pool, so one direction or the other is better.

And you can only mix and match licenses if someone does not use a Share-alike CC license, but I'll assume you already knew that.

You are free to use whatever licenses you want on your work, so the creator wouldn't have to follow any CC-BY-SA license it put out, just like WotC didn't follow the OGL on its works.

When all is said and done, I think that the conclusion is: the OGL is the superior and easier license for protecting IP while making a system open.

The best way to open some parts and not others is to create an SRD or PRD and only make that open. If you don't mix the material in any way, shape or form, it's perfectly clear to the reusers what they can and can't use. If you're using someone else's system, the underlying license being CC-BY is by far superior to it being the OGL, as you don't have to give anyone the right to use anything new from your work.

 

[Wicht]

If you want to have Product Identity, you don't put it in the SRD. That solves that problem.

Well, no, really it doesn't, unless everyone who wants to use the system is fine with making generic worlds. But for a system where multiple creators want to publish books with IP in it, then the CC becomes less useful. The CC is also less useful for a system where you do want people to build on other people's work, while still allowing IP. The CC-BY-SA comes closest to the OGL but fails to protect IP.

I get what the CC is for, and why some might want to use it, but I still think the OGL is better for what it does.

As I've said, I think the OGL failed in meaningfully compelling users to return anything useful to the collective pool, so one direction or the other is better.

I would disagree with that opinion myself. I think the Pathfinder 3pp community proves it to be false.

If you're using someone else's system, the underlying license being CC-BY is by far superior to it being the OGL, as you don't have to give anyone the right to use anything new from your work.

That attitude is sorta antithetical to the theory behind an Open system.

 

[jmucchiello]

Well, that's not true.
Publishers releasing derivative content might only care about commercial reuse, but that's not the only people who might use a CC licence.

Commercial use was the WHOLE POINT of the OGL. Fan use was not even considered.

If releasing a game system under CC, a noncommercial licence that allows derivatives allows fan content (adventures, accessories). And just being able to freely distribute would also be handy. For example, WotC could have released the Basic Rules under BY-NC-ND allowing the rules to be freely spread across the web but limiting derivation and expansion. It would clear up the legality of the Basic Rules pretty effortlessly.

The GOAL of the OGL was to create a safe harbor in which 3pps could publish books compatible with D&D without saying they were D&D (see: the D20 license) and without worrying about needing WotC's permission. Basically, the OGL is "If you follow these guidelines, you are in the clear. Good Luck" SPREADING D&D around the web was not a goal WotC had in mind.

But, even if you can't mix licences, you could do something like a separate PDF released under a different licence than other products. You can mix-and-match licences with every release. So a game publisher could have their setting under a restrictive licence, their expansions under non-commercial licence, the rules document under a licence that allows everything.

How do you provide game mechanics for the setting without polluting the game mechanics section with stuff you wanted only under the restrictive license? The OGL has the Product Identity provision to handle that very detail. CC does not.

 

[jmucchiello]

If you want to have Product Identity, you don't put it in the SRD. That solves that problem.

That only solves the problem for the FIRST PARTY PUBLISHER. 3PPs don't generally create SYSTEM REFERENCE DOCUMENTS because they are not making SYSTEMS. They are just adding small bits and pieces to an existing SRD. The only reason for an SRD is you don't want to clutter you game book with legalese.

As I've said, I think the OGL failed in meaningfully compelling users to return anything useful to the collective pool, so one direction or the other is better.

What are you talking about? You don't think the OGC in, say, Pathfinder expands the collective pool meaningfully? I think there are a large number of Pathfinder players who would disagree with that statement. Have you seen the Section 15 of some OGL products? Some of them pull stuff in from lots of different sources, building on prior OGC to create more OGC.