That thread title was only going to cause problems anyway

[Vigilance]

Remembering, of course, that OGC released under the OGL may not have any restrictions placed upon it than those in the OGL itself.

Sure, but there's plenty of precedent for including a sub-license for use of non-open content and/or for cross-marketing purposes.

My post was more about "free not free" than the merits of the various licenses. Since licenses are a bore to me, if I were making a game product, I'd just use the one license I'm required to anyway, the OGL, rather than go to the trouble of two licenses.

 

[SteveC]

Hence the question: Why wouldn't From Dretch to Demon Lord require an OGL at the back?

Largely because the OGL isn't something that's required to make gaming products that are compatible with D&D, and it's certainly not required for fiction. The most important thing is that the OGL is a contract you're entering into that gives you certain benefits, and has other costs associated with it. You essentially get to use other people's (open) content wholesale, without fear of legal repercussions, provided you adhere to the letter of the license.

It's certainly not the only way to do things, but it is the easiest and most recognizable one.

--Steve

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

Hence the question: Why wouldn't From Dretch to Demon Lord require an OGL at the back?

It does have an OGL declaration in the back.

Also, see my earlier comments regarding its OGL status.

BD

 

[Turanil]

I find it kind of hard to believe, but am I really the only one who is doing a creative commons attribution fantasy setting?

Here a couple of URLs:
-- The Highland A campaign setting plus a game system released under the Creative Commons license.
-- Gwenthia Another campaign setting released under the Creative Commons license.
-- Tempest Campaign Setting This one is a collaborative work done on a wiki website, but under the OGL rather than the CC.

 

[RFisher]

I tend to think the CC licenses & the OGL are a waste of time for anyone who doesn't have commercial purposes. (Note that building a reputation through free product in order to get jobs is a commercial purpose.) Unless you're actually going to spend time trying to police use & attribution, what's it matter? The people who'd reuse your work without attribution are likely to ignore your license anyway. Probably through sheer ignorance. & you (in the US at least) are automatically granted copyright if you do decide to want to do anything about a particular offense.

Now, if you have commercial purposes, you should ignore nigh everything you read online & consult an IP lawyer who works for you.

 

[Mark CMG]

I tend to think the CC licenses & the OGL are a waste of time for anyone who doesn't have commercial purposes. (Note that building a reputation through free product in order to get jobs is a commercial purpose.) Unless you're actually going to spend time trying to police use & attribution, what's it matter? The people who'd reuse your work without attribution are likely to ignore your license anyway. Probably through sheer ignorance. & you (in the US at least) are automatically granted copyright if you do decide to want to do anything about a particular offense.

Now, if you have commercial purposes, you should ignore nigh everything you read online & consult an IP lawyer who works for you.

Naw. It isn't really all that tough to properly use the OGL. If you are just creating something for yourself, sure, why bother using it? But if you are going to share it at all, particularly online, then it is just being respectful (to others and yourself) to take a few moments to do it right. Doing it right prevents you from having to actually do any policing at all.

 

[RFisher]

Doing it right prevents you from having to actually do any policing at all.

() The OGL doesn't magically cause people to understand or abide by it. As evidenced by the fact that even commercial ventures--with a vested interest in doing so--have failed.

 

[Morrus]

Hence the question: Why wouldn't From Dretch to Demon Lord require an OGL at the back?

What on earth makes you think it doesn't?

 

[Ry]

See other posts. Already cleared that up.

 

[Ry]

In case any of the old posters are watching this: I decided to release the project (still in early stages) in a systemless core document under the OGL and again under CC-Attribution (with clear attribution guidelines spelled out in the document). So both will be out there simultaneously and people can use the license they're comfortable with. That's the best statement of "use it, just credit me" I think this project could make.