We Still Need ORC

[Reynard]

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

Of course, but it is an extra step that isn't necessary assuming an OGL-like working ORC. It is probably trivial for a Kobold or ENP, but not so much for a small publisher working on a small product. The point -- or, my point, anyway -- is to create an environment where Open Gaming is easy and vibrant, with lots of cross pollination between creators and companies. I want to be able to write an adventure using a A5E monster that I modify to be even cooler and give it back to the Open Gaming community (just as an example).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

So in short: CC is more open than OGL ever was or ORC should be?
Always found it stupid to be able to only take and not give a single line of your own. So I don't need ORC.

Until I am proven wrong, I think, that ORC was a PR stunt mostly, maybe a threat to WotC. Timing and so on was about dealing the heaviest blow to WotC as possible. Not that I say, WotC did not deserve it at the time.

 

[Enrahim2]

My understanding is that OGL is convenient in that it defaults game mechanical stuff to be open, while the more "fluffy" stuff like examples, chapter intro fiction and other such things that often is part of game books of is not included by default. Hence by just releasing a book with a combination of both, and OGL attached very little "preamble" would be needed to identify what is released as open - assuming how it is likely most would like to separate "game content" from "creative fiction". (The assumption is that you want to let others use your game specific content, but not build on your fiction)

The provision explicitly forbidding use of product identity might also be a feature that might make the license more attractive to users that has certain IP they have reason to wish more complete control over like "Golarion", or "Jedi". In particular this likely make OGL more easy to sell to use for RPGs using big mainstream IPs.

So I think this default separation, and PI mechanism are what ORC should probably try to replicate, and that might make it more convenient and attractive than CC for many commercial RPG-uses for a range of business sizes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The more people want to encourage open gaming, the happier I will be as a player. No reason WotC has to be the only company setting the standard here. Bring on the ORC!

 

[Morrus]

Lots of choices of license can only be good. What suits one company might not suit another.

 

[Reynard]

So in short: CC is more open than OGL ever was or ORC should be?
Always found it stupid to be able to only take and not give a single line of your own. So I don't need ORC.

So you weren't interested in responding to what I wrote, only what was in your head?

Until I am proven wrong, I think, that ORC was a PR stunt mostly, maybe a threat to WotC. Timing and so on was about dealing the heaviest blow to WotC as possible. Not that I say, WotC did not deserve it at the time.

I'm not sure that's how burden of proof works. But my guess is you aren't actually interested in being convinced of anything.

 

[Kinematics]

We don't know what's going to be in ORC yet, so saying we do or don't need it is a bit premature. Still, while I'm not a publisher (so I haven't gotten involved in the creation process), there are certainly things I hope they are considering, and I think will be beneficial for them to work on.

Lots of choices of license can only be good. What suits one company might not suit another.

Also, this. There are dozens (hundreds?) of open source licenses for source code, each designed to fill a very particular need. It is not unreasonable to consider that there might need to be a few different open gaming licenses to fill different publishers' needs.

Just make sure the baseline license is designed to be reasonably compatible with likely variants, so that the different licenses can be used together.

 

[SoonRaccoon]

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

If the ORC license works the way the OGL was intended to, it will be a sort of half way point between the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses.

The CC-BY license says you may make derivative works, and basically do whatever you like with them. The only real stipulation is that you say what original work you are adapting, i.e. you have to say who the original work is BY.

The CC-BY-SA is like the CC-BY, but there's an additional restriction that you are also required to make your derivative work available for others under the CC-BY-SA license. You have to share and "share alike" (SA).

The OGL has "share alike" clauses, meaning the parts of your work that are derived from content released under the OGL must also be made available under the OGL, but you're able to carve out other parts of your work that are off limits to be used, generally narrative and setting elements. I'm not sure if that is allowed under the CC-BY-SA license. I expect this is the niche that the ORC will fill.

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.

All the Creative Commons licenses are released under the CC0 license. You can think of the CC0 license as releasing a work into the public domain. So, while the Creative Commons nonprofit organization owns the copyright to their licenses, because they've released them under CC0 licenses, it doesn't give them any actual control over people who use their licenses. Hopefully the ORC will be similar.

 

[J.Quondam]

Also, this. There are dozens (hundreds?) of open source licenses for source code, each designed to fill a very particular need. It is not unreasonable to consider that there might need to be a few different open gaming licenses to fill different publishers' needs.

Just make sure the baseline license is designed to be reasonably compatible with likely variants, so that the different licenses can be used together.

Something that would be really helpful would be a website that lays out some of the common licensing options useful to RPG creators in particular.

It could provide an overview "Things to think about" FAQ, which would help a creator know what questions to ask their own counsel. There could also be a handful of FAQs providing basic information about the licenses typically used by RPG creators, and links to those licenses' own sites. Maybe there'd be some guidance on using multiple licenses in one publication. There would likely also be a glossary to help non-lawyers understand the terms in these discussions that always pop up in these sorts of discussions.

That's probably outside the ORC people's wheelhouse, but they might be the logical group to do (or arrange) such a thing.

 

[Enrahim2]

Lots of choices of license can only be good. What suits one company might not suit another.

I would say this is not the case for open licensing schemes. The problem is that cross-licensing is pain. Share Alike make it worse. It is much simpler for everyone if only one licensing scheme is at play. For instance using OGL1.0a released material in works that want to release things under ORC or CC will at the very least be quite cumbersome.

I hope ORC is a good license that can become the new de-facto standard, allowing for minimal friction of content use and reuse without having to worry about wizards suddenly going crazy again.