Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prosfilaes" data-source="post: 6686467" data-attributes="member: 40166">The CC is not all-or-nothing; it can cover any copyrightable work, including part of a book. One can publish a CC-BY-SA work in an anthology that is otherwise copyrighted.The phrase "public domain" is a bad one here; the CC licenses never declare anything to be public domain. They declare things to be usable by the public, an entirely different proposal.The NC, ND, and NC-ND CC licenses are not alternatives to the OGL; they are substantially more restrictive, and the reasons to use them instead of the OGL are obvious if you want no commercial or no derivatives.Both the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses have big advantages in that they're recognized as Free licenses, recognized by the Free Software Foundation and the Wikimedia Foundation. PCGen does not ship with Debian because they don't consider Free, and while I'm sure a discussion on that could led us far astray, suffice it to say they have their principles and have made their decision on them. Having a license well-understood as Free instead of one that's debatable so can be a big advantage in working with groups outside of the RPG industry. They're also lighter weight than the OGL, not requiring the whole license to be repeated in every book. They both get rid of the trademark clauses; I doubt having "This product is compatible with the Pathfinder RPG; this product is neither authorized by or associated with Paizo, the publishers of the Pathfinder RPG." is a huge problem for most people.The CC-BY is nice and easy for everyone involved; just provide the attribution, and don't worry about all the other stuff. The share-alike part of the OGL is as often as not a farce; there's pretty much nothing interesting reusable from the Scarred Lands Creature Collection, and there's a lot of books whose vagueness makes it hard to extract any OGL material. So stop stressing about it.(It's interesting how different the D&D 3 and Pathfinder environments have been about this. The share-alike features of the OGL hardly came into play in the 3E era; they could have been left out. In Pathfinder there has been a lot more sharing at points. On the other hand, the Tomb of Horrors may not have had to share at all, given that they were licensing direct from WotC, and Pathfinder publishers could choose less than the most restrictive license they had available.)The CC-BY-SA is tighter on its share-alike rules. I would say the CC-BY-SA part at least would have to be clearly separable. It might make some of the licensed works unfeasible, but at the same time it would make a lot more reusable material. The CC licenses offer different things from the OGL. If you need something that's not exactly OGL, one of them might fit much better. And if you're worried about fitting in, remember the CC licenses are way more common (Wikipedia, etc.) and way more well known then the OGL.</blockquote>

Verification