We Still Need ORC

[Reynard]

Well, yes, the main benefit of the "Open Gaming" community is getting me more stuff for D&D: that was Ryan Dancey's explicit goal with creating it!

And create a share alike open gaming ecosystem. Don't cherry pick.

As it stands now, WotC has no business interest in the OGL, because they released the game under a more open license. They have no motive to make any changes. And as it stands, they're committed to releasing other editions under CC and are looking into ORC to release material too. Sounds like a win for "Open Gaming."

That's a weird way to spell "gave lip service to."

 

[Parmandur]

To be clear, I meant start a company.

Strictly speaking, I wouldn't recommend starting a gaming company if it involves putting ones life on the line.

 

[Parmandur]

And create a share alike open gaming ecosystem. Don't cherry pick.

That's a weird way to spell "gave lip service to."

Yeah, "share alike" in OGL is weak: people avoid it all the time, with ease. Effectively, CC as WotC has put it out is no different.

And yeah, time will tell about them releasing more material or under further licenses: but no particular reason to doubt it will happen, particularly since it seems that people who understand how "Open Gaming" helps D&D maintain dominance are calling shots.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, "share alike" in OGL is weak: people avoid it all the time, with ease.

As far as I know, only because no one ever challenged it.

And yeah, time will tell about them releasing more material or under further licenses: but no particular reason to doubt it will happen, particularly since it seems that people who understand how "Open Gaming" helps D&D maintain dominance are calling shots.

Here's hoping. But that fact that we need to "hope" is exactly the basis of this thread. it is why we need ORC ie a real Open Gaming license that cannot be dismantled or retracted. I would love if it also gave the share alike requirement some teeth, but I don't think it will matter.

 

[Parmandur]

As far as I know, only because no one ever challenged it.

By what mechanism could it be challenged, and by whom? The whole idea of "Produxt Identity" might not stand up in court, if it could be tries somehow. Honestly, using CC to share some but not all content again is just as easy, but more legally sound.

Here's hoping. But that fact that we need to "hope" is exactly the basis of this thread. it is why we need ORC ie a real Open Gaming license that cannot be dismantled or retracted. I would love if it also gave the share alike requirement some teeth, but I don't think it will matter.

I mean, by that measure, we don't know.anything about ORC yet other than stayed intentions.

 

[Reynard]

By what mechanism could it be challenged, and by whom? The whole idea of "Produxt Identity" might not stand up in court, if it could be tries somehow. Honestly, using CC to share some but not all content again is just as easy, but more legally sound.

If someone had chosen to use some mechanic -- a monster's stats or a spell or whatever -- that some previous OGL publisher had called Product Identity and the creator of that PI decided to C&D them. I know I am not a lawyer but the language of the license is pretty straight forward: games mechanics are OGC, and PI is a long list of things that pointedly does not include game mechanics. People like Monte Cook choosing to label everything PI so they don't have to share -- but gain the benefits of the license -- are the worst offenders. I would very much like to see that struck down as a viable way to engage Open Content.

 

[mamba]

If WotC had released all the SRDs (including a complete 5E SRD) under Share Alike it probably would have been fine, but without that it kind of undermines the intent of the OGL.

Maybe, but in practice it makes no difference. With the OGL 3pps can carve out what they do not want to share (and for some that is everything), with CC they have to specify what they want to share (and for some that might be nothing).

In the end there is no practical difference.

 

[Reynard]

Maybe, but in practice it makes no difference. With the OGL 3pps can carve out what they do not want to share (and for some that is everything), with CC they have to specify what they want to share (and for some that might be nothing).

That wasn't the intent, but no one ever pushed back. So here we are.

Object lesson: ALWAYS push back.

 

[Parmandur]

If someone had chosen to use some mechanic -- a monster's stats or a spell or whatever -- that some previous OGL publisher had called Product Identity and the creator of that PI decided to C&D them. I know I am not a lawyer but the language of the license is pretty straight forward: games mechanics are OGC, and PI is a long list of things that pointedly does not include game mechanics. People like Monte Cook choosing to label everything PI so they don't have to share -- but gain the benefits of the license -- are the worst offenders. I would very much like to see that struck down as a viable way to engage Open Content.

Sounds more like a recipe to get the OGL deemed unenforceable by a judge. Product Identity is not an actual legal concept.

 

[Parmandur]

That wasn't the intent, but no one ever pushed back. So here we are.

Object lesson: ALWAYS push back.

The intent isn't necessarily important in a contract, it's the letter that does. And as written, the OGL is de facto opt in to share elements.