We Still Need ORC

[Reynard]

For real Open Gaming, where creators can share systems and designs and actually innovate.

WotC backing off deathorization of the OGL 1.0a does not actually solve the problem they highlighted by trying in the first place -- especially if they aren't explicitly modifying it to be irrevocable.

Creators need a permanent safe harbor outside of the control of one company. They need a straight forward license that makes it easy to build on each other's work and allow for a flourishing open gaming community independent of being designed to support one particular game.

 

[Morrus]

Yup, we still plan to follow ORC's progress very closely.

 

[Reynard]

Yup, we still plan to follow ORC's progress very closely.

And I will support -- financially and creatively-- whatever EN Publishing releases into the Open Gaming wild. That's what is really important here, not "D&D."

 

[Morrus]

Don't look at a5esrd.com whatever you do! It's top secret!

 

[mellored]

Random question.

How is ORC different from creative commons?

 

[Reynard]

Random question.

How is ORC different from creative commons?

We don't know for sure, but it will likely be much more like the OGL than CC. This should mean it is easier for companies to share their Open Content while preserving their rights over their specific IP -- which (and I'm no expert so I could be wrong) it doesn't appear that CC makes that distinction easily. Companies could release SRD information under CC, but that's an extra layer of work especially for smaller companies.

 

[Retreater]

Absolutely we do. Wizards can yank the OGL 1.0a at any time. They only gave a promise on a social media post. That promise - with no legal backing at all - is the only thing that is keeping alive Pathfinder, Dungeon Crawl Classics, Old School Essentials, and most other games not explicitly based on 5th edition.

 

[Umbran]

For real Open Gaming, where creators can share systems and designs and actually innovate.

I don't see how you can say a thing is "needed" when you don't know what it does yet. ORC might ultimately turn out to be more about branding than necessary legal function that can't be had elsewhere - because the legal function may already exist.

Creators need a permanent safe harbor outside of the control of one company.

Someone will hold the copyright on the license itself - whether that's a law firm, or a nonprofit, or whatever. And that means that, technically, the copyright on the license can eventually be in the hands of someone who does not value that safe harbor.

And, let us be clear - safe harbors are a privilege, not a right.

They need a straight forward license that makes it easy to build on each other's work and allow for a flourishing open gaming community independent of being designed to support one particular game.

It is unclear why we need ORC for that - why doesn't Creative Commons serve that function?

 

[Reynard]

It is unclear why we need ORC for that - why doesn't Creative Commons serve that function?

Unless I misunderstand how it works, CC does not include a mechanism for separating out Open Content versus Closed Content.

 

[Morrus]

Unless I misunderstand how it works, CC does not include a mechanism for separating out Open Content versus Closed Content.

Sure, but your computer does. You put your SRD out under CC, not your book.