Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DJ Shepard" data-source="post: 9858390" data-attributes="member: 7044370">I generally agree with you, but I do think it's positive that the OGL still exists as a license for those creative few who do use it. For instance, MT Black uses both the CC license or OGL depending on the adventure product because it allows access to the whole downstream of open game content from other publishers. He does some really cool stuff in his Iskandar Player's Guide bringing subclasses from several sources together and using OGL monsters from KP and others in his adventures.The loss of opt-in viral open game content sharing is one factor of the OGL fracturing that I lament. I think the strongest negative of the CC-BY is the lack of incentive to contribute to a body of open content. You can use 1,600 KP Monsters, and the A5e Monstrous Menagerie ones that Morris has kindly also maintained under the OGL in the same product (and which Mike uses for the Artisanal Monster Database). I have yet to see a credible discussion of how to approach licensing for CC-BY content and OGL open content together in the same product (I.e. an adventure, rules supplement, or setting book). The only place I've seen this actually done was in Horizons magazine from Wildmage Press, which cited different licenses for each article. For those who point to the ORC license, I think it has less appeal because the license is more prescriptive on downstream creators than the OGL was (though perhaps I'm not following the products that leverage it to see it in action).Final thought that should still be asked of WOTC: where's the 3.5 SRD in CC that was promised? That is the source of several materials that seem to only be available under it (the Otyugh for example--it's not in the 5.1 or 5.2.1 SRD).</blockquote>

Verification