D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[prosfilaes]

Well, no, really it doesn't, unless everyone who wants to use the system is fine with making generic worlds.

The CC-BY license doesn't prevent anybody who uses the system from doing practically anything with it. The only thing it demands is credit.
The CC-BY-SA license is excellent at producing non-generic worlds. As I said, Traveller is an example of a universe that has been ill-served by licenses that let creators keep their additions to themselves, leaving some parts of the Traveller map defined, fairly canonically, by books that are long out of print whose copyright owners are unknown or unfindable.

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.

You're conflating a lot here. If multiple creators want to use a CC-BY licensed work but have proprietary additions, that's fine. If they want to return stuff to the Commons, they can either segregate it in their book, issue it in a separate PDF or book, or simply upload it to a System Commons.

I would say the CC-BY comes closer to the OGL than the CC-BY-SA; the CC-BY-SA is a much stronger share-alike license then the OGL is. The CC-BY-SA protects the community's IP. A hypothetical Star Wars using a CC-BY-SA system could certainly segregate their use of a CC-BY-SA system in one part of the book, and accept that the use of terms is protected merely by trademark law (the CC-BY-SA explicitly says it does not include any trademark rights.)

Not everything is a generic system, too. If they released Torg under the CC-BY-SA, why is it problematic for the releasers that someone can't drop Star Wars or Lankmar into Torg? The CC-BY and CC-BY-SA compatibility lets you have a CC-BY system and CC-BY-SA worlds on top of that that can't be made proprietary.

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.

That's pretty much a tautology. The question is the OGL better for what you need and want, if you're the one choosing.

I think the Pathfinder 3pp community proves it to be false.

It's an argument, but I'd say that "meaningfully compelling" makes the 3E experience more important than the PF experience. If the groups are willing to contribute back, then that's a different question; if they're willing to contribute back, then they would have contributed back under CC-BY, as well. The OGL doesn't have the teeth of the CC-BY-SA, both in wording and the way WotC neglected to enforce that clause.

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

There are many ideas of what an Open system can be. In the Open Source world, there are the BSD operating systems that are proud that proprietary Unixes can use their code without problem. That is one theory of what an Open System can be, a system where everyone can use it and contribute back if they want. In a culture where people actually contribute back, that can work quite well.

 

[prosfilaes]

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.

Why should a 3PP clutter their book with legalese? The OGL forces the 3PP to do so, but the CC-BY doesn't. If a third party publisher, working with a CC-BY system, wants to contribute material back as OGC, stuff another PDF in the ebook download. (Yes, those who only get the physical book wouldn't get it; how common is that in 3PP cases?) Or send it to a System Commons, and actually add small bits and pieces to the existing SRD in a way maximally convenient way for Commons.

What are you talking about? You don't think the OGC in, say, Pathfinder expands the collective pool meaningfully?

When I'm talking about "meaningfully compel", I'm talking about what's been added because they had to; Paizo has gone above and beyond what they had to, as have a lot of publishers. People who would have done it anyway don't need a restrictive license to make them play. It's clear a community can be built around a non-share alike license. It's also clear, especially for the OGL, that people can build works on a free license without making anything clearly reusable. The OGL instead of the CC-BY probably freed up some material, but there's a lot of stuff restrictively limited, ranging from clearly inside the OGL to clearly outside it (but are you going to challenge it?).

 

[Wicht]

The OGL instead of the CC-BY probably freed up some material, but there's a lot of stuff restrictively limited, ranging from clearly inside the OGL to clearly outside it (but are you going to challenge it?).

What is outside the OGL that is bothering you?

You seem to be under the impression that most OGL publishers are trying not to share, but in my experience, they are all sharing pretty well.

 

[prosfilaes]

What is outside the OGL that is bothering you?

You seem to be under the impression that most OGL publishers are trying not to share, but in my experience, they are all sharing pretty well.

In more or less chronological order:

The Scarred Lands Creature Collection includes creature names in their PI, which is by the license, but specifically calls out Undead Ooze, an incredibly generic name, the only value of making it PI being to avoid sharing. Perhaps more charitably to make it clear the full extent of the restriction, but it's pretty clear that the licensing on the Creature Collection had no goal of sharing.

The Quintessential Elf says "All game mechanics and statistics derivative of Open Game Content and the System Reference Document are to be considered Open Gaming Content." Besides failing "8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.", it's also basically defining OGC as anything they couldn't get away with calling OGC.

Mutants and Masterminds, 2e:

The following is designated as Product Identity, in accordance with Section 1(e) of the Open Game License, Version 1.0a: all character and place names and descriptions, all artwork and images, power points, and hero points.

(d)”Open Game Content” means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) “Product Identity” means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations,
environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product

That's a lot of text, but the point is, as far as I can tell "power points and hero points" are not valid Product Identity--they are the game mechanic, they aren't a trademark, and don't seem to fall under any other category. Not only that, the only goal behind that is to control those who would want to use the M&M system and aren't worried about using the trademark.

Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, artworks, and trade dress. (Elements that have previously been designated as Open Game Content are not included in this declaration.) Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the game mechanics of this Paizo Publishing game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission.

Paizo's declaration, from the PRD no less. This is from a publisher who I'm firmly convinced is big on sharing, but yet, this violates section 8. (The whole "all trademarks" part is nonsense; what makes an unregistered trademark a trademark, in part, is you saying "hey, this is my trademark".) In the case of the PRD, it's frustratingly broad and one of those things the OGL as applied allows and almost encourages.

 

[jmucchiello]

Hero points and power points are "concepts". They are valid Product Identity. But you are correct, that's a very non-sharing way to create OGC. Mongoose was also doing that too. Yes, correct. I could call out other publishers that were chintzy when it came to contributing to the pool. And I could give examples of publishers that were generous with their OGC. What's your point? Other than proving that a Share-Alike license is not what was desired by 3PPs and thus WotC did not require one.

Again, the 1600 pound gorilla said you lemurs can play in my sandbox, if you follow these rules. It worked perfectly for that.

 

[Hussar]

Hero points and power points are "concepts". They are valid Product Identity. But you are correct, that's a very non-sharing way to create OGC. Mongoose was also doing that too. Yes, correct. I could call out other publishers that were chintzy when it came to contributing to the pool. And I could give examples of publishers that were generous with their OGC. What's your point? Other than proving that a Share-Alike license is not what was desired by 3PPs and thus WotC did not require one.

Again, the 1600 pound gorilla said you lemurs can play in my sandbox, if you follow these rules. It worked perfectly for that.

But wasn't one of the points of the OGL to create cross pollination? That you would have 3pp bringing out material, using WOTC's sandbox, that everyone could then turn around and use? It's the good and the bad point about the OGL, IMO. Yup, you get to use all that nifty stuff, but, no, you don't get to be all possessive about it. But there were some publishers that would use the OGL and then turn around and be very loudly protective of anything they created, despite the fact that the very license they are using to create their content specifically allows other people to do that.

Until the advent of 4e, anyone bringing up the idea of a 3e Wiki to collate all the 3e OGC out there was very quickly shouted down. Publishers complained about other people "stealing" their work. When a new version of the Mutants and Masterminds book came out, someone banged out a Hypertext SRD almost immediately and Green Ronin went through the roof. Again, despite the fact that the guy doing the Hypertext version was doing absolutely nothing wrong.

There's was always lots and lots of talk about how WOTC should be doing more to make things easier for other publishers, but, when the shoe was on the other foot, there was an awful lot of rancor towards anyone who wanted to reprint OGC.

Thing is, while a Share-Alike license was not desired by some 3PP's the OGL was already right there and the intent was certainly there that 3PP weren't supposed to turn around and create Broken OGC. The whole story, like a lot of things, is not one sided.

 

[prosfilaes]

Hero points and power points are "concepts". They are valid Product Identity.

In a comparative discussion of licenses, saying the OGL has a 92 word definition that could be written "“Product Identity” means anything clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product" is not a point in favor of the OGL.

What's your point? Other than proving that a Share-Alike license is not what was desired by 3PPs and thus WotC did not require one.

But the OGL is sort of a Share-Alike license. If you exchanged the OGL for the CC-BY, you would make things much easier on reusers and end all the farce of share-alike evasion. Or you could use the CC-BY-SA and have a strong Share-Alike license and form a strong body of reusable work.

Again, the 1600 pound gorilla said you lemurs can play in my sandbox, if you follow these rules. It worked perfectly for that.

That's water under the bridge. I'm not even really talking about what WotC should do; I'm sure if they do get around to a new OGL, it will be a new license that matches their bete noires. I am saying that if one is choosing a license from scratch, that the CC-BY or CC-BY-SA might well work better, given that one is not the 1600 pound gorilla.

 

[Wicht]

In more or less chronological order:

The Scarred Lands Creature Collection includes creature names in their PI,... it's pretty clear that the licensing on the Creature Collection had no goal of sharing.

I think you are imposing an unnecessary interpretation. They made both names and flavor text closed, as was their right, because both of them had copious amounts of world-names and descriptions in them. It was easier to do a blanket cut-off then to delineate with each monster. But their monsters are fine, and (with some minor tweaking) very usable. I've used them in at least two different assignments.

The Quintessential Elf says "All game mechanics and statistics derivative of Open Game Content and the System Reference Document are to be considered Open Gaming Content." Besides failing "8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.", it's also basically defining OGC as anything they couldn't get away with calling OGC.

I notice you again interpret in the most uncharitable way possible. I think the better explanation is that they worded their statement poorly; but essentially all the mechanics of the book are going to be open, and all the fluff text is going to be closed. People learned how to say this more clearly as time went by, but you should make allowances for a learning curve.

That's a lot of text, but the point is, as far as I can tell "power points and hero points" are not valid Product Identity--they are the game mechanic, they aren't a trademark, and don't seem to fall under any other category. Not only that, the only goal behind that is to control those who would want to use the M&M system and aren't worried about using the trademark.

I'll grant you this one. But so far you have one example of someone being less disposed towards sharing than they should be.

Paizo's declaration, from the PRD no less. This is from a publisher who I'm firmly convinced is big on sharing, but yet, this violates section 8. (The whole "all trademarks" part is nonsense; what makes an unregistered trademark a trademark, in part, is you saying "hey, this is my trademark".) In the case of the PRD, it's frustratingly broad and one of those things the OGL as applied allows and almost encourages.

To be honest, I have no idea what your complaint about the Paizo declaration is. I think its a model declaration. Clear, comprehensive and generous.

 

[Wicht]

But wasn't one of the points of the OGL to create cross pollination? That you would have 3pp bringing out material, using WOTC's sandbox, that everyone could then turn around and use? It's the good and the bad point about the OGL, IMO. Yup, you get to use all that nifty stuff, but, no, you don't get to be all possessive about it. But there were some publishers that would use the OGL and then turn around and be very loudly protective of anything they created, despite the fact that the very license they are using to create their content specifically allows other people to do that.

I think you guys are protesting too much.

There has been a lot of cross-pollination. And the amount continues to increase.

Sure, there were corner cases here and there where it did not happen like it should, and WotC never made an effort to encourage it (which I think was part of the problem) but sharing and cross polination still happened, it still continues to happen, and most people involved in producing OGL material approve of others using their works. In fact, they are tickled pink when it happens.

The OGL community some of you are seemingly picturing in your heads is nothing like the OGL community I observe on a regular basis.

 

[jmucchiello]

Thing is, while a Share-Alike license was not desired by some 3PP's the OGL was already right there and the intent was certainly there that 3PP weren't supposed to turn around and create Broken OGC. The whole story, like a lot of things, is not one sided.

There are 3PPs who didn't use the OGL in the manner it was intended? SHOCK!! A business entity was selfish. HOW COULD THAT BE?

Again, so what. There were also very generous 3PPs opening most everything. Some 3PPs walked a thin line of selfish and generous. Some 3PPs wanted to be generous but f--ked up the wording of the legalese making their OGC toxic by mistake. And Some 3PPs wanted a tight grip but screwed up and let stuff loose they didn't intend to.

The OGL did what it was supposed to. It created a safe sandbox for 3PPs to use or not use one another's works legally with needing to get permission first. Just because some folks were asshats about it doesn't change the fact that lots of cross-pollination of OGC from multiple publishers in 3PP works were made. sold, etc.