That thread title was only going to cause problems anyway

[Ry]

Update in October 2007: See post 50 for what I'm doing with regards to licensing.

I find it kind of hard to believe, but am I really the only one who is doing a creative commons attribution fantasy setting? I did a search using creativecommons.org and the first result that came up was Legacies, which I've only recently started.

I would have thought somebody had a take on elves and wizards and so forth in a way that others could use as they wished...

 

[Treebore]

I know your not the only one creating new settings, I have downloaded a half dozen or more others that I have found, and were done well. As for settings done with your specific parameters, you may be the only one. At least the only one with a outline for what they want to do.

 

[fusangite]

I know your not the only one creating new settings, I have downloaded a half dozen or more others that I have found, and were done well. As for settings done with your specific parameters, you may be the only one. At least the only one with a outline for what they want to do.

I'm with Treebore. Your question would make more sense if you could explain why this was an especially good way to work on a setting.

 

[Ry]

I just thought it was a natural choice for someone who has ideas that aren't on their way to publication... that way others can use them. Given how much writing and designing happens for these fantasy worlds, by people who don't look towards publication as the project's endpoint, I thought it was a natural choice for sharing your work.

 

[fusangite]

I just thought it was a natural choice for someone who has ideas that aren't on their way to publication... that way others can use them. Given how much writing and designing happens for these fantasy worlds, by people who don't look towards publication as the project's endpoint, I thought it was a natural choice for sharing your work.

I find that the system's assumptions about the ways and order in which settings are developed and described don't really fit with my own. So I guess it's a less "natural" choice for me.

 

[Ry]

Huh? What assumptions does the Creative Commons license make about the way a setting is developed or described?

 

[jdrakeh]

I just thought it was a natural choice for someone who has ideas that aren't on their way to publication... that way others can use them.

Honestly, I think that the OGL is a better option than CC for these goals, for reasons that I touch on here. In terms of clear and binding contractual language, the CC is something of a sick joke.

 

[Ry]

But in terms of a setting, stats-free, no game material... how does the OGL even apply? In the definitions in the OGL it defines Open Game Content in terms of procedures and game mechanics. That doesn't cover sharing fictional characters, cultures, names, and so forth. That's what I'm trying to do.

With Legacies, I chose CC because I want to say "Hey, don't use the idea without at least putting me in the credits, but otherwise you can do what you like."

 

[jdrakeh]

In the definitions in the OGL it defines Open Game Content in terms of procedures and game mechanics.

The only absolutes that the OGL deals in are "open gaming content" and "product identity" -- and, per the license, a creator can declare anything to be one or the other as they see fit (which is why such declarations are mandatory). To wit, large swaths of the Murchad's Legacy campaign setting are OGC.

With Legacies, I chose CC because I want to say "Hey, don't use the idea without at least putting me in the credits, but otherwise you can do what you like."

The OGL also has has provisions for this (specifically, anybody using the license must attribute the source of all OGC material in the accompanying Section 15 or that instance of the license is rendered void).

 

[Ry]

If that's so, why does section 1 define OGC and PI? I don't understand... are you allowed to write your own section 1 when you use the OGL?