Why not a CC license?

M_Natas

Hero
So, after following some of the discussions (it is impossible to follow all of the OGL discussions unless I quit my full time job :D ), I had one on Facebook about the need to create ORC and why we can't just use a CC license.
Like, if I would develop a new RPG or would want to transfer my old products from OGL to a safer license, why can't I just use a Creative Common attribution share alike license for the rules and like a cc non commercial license or just no open license for the actual setting and adventure?
Why do I need ORC or OGL, what does that really do better than my CC solution?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


M_Natas

Hero
As I understand it, the biggest reason is that the OGL is written to permit the presence of open game content and closed game content in the same document, while the CC licenses do not allow for that granularity.

Presumably the ORC will be similarly designed.
But can't I get the same effect by declaring what is under CC? With the OGL I also needed to declare what in my Book will be put under OGL and what is not covered by it (a lot just put the whole Book under OGL).
 

mhd

Adventurer
If it's coming from inside of the industry and operates pretty much how people thought the other license operated for 23 years, it's going to gain more acceptance than something barely known to most people.

Plus yeah, that OGC/PI thing instead of having licensing declaration totally external to the license.
 

rcade

Hero
But can't I get the same effect by declaring what is under CC? With the OGL I also needed to declare what in my Book will be put under OGL and what is not covered by it (a lot just put the whole Book under OGL).
Nobody needs to keep portions of a work outside of the OGL. The declarations of Open Game Content and Product Identity serve that purpose by delineating what portion can be shared.

Creative Commons lacks a concept like Product Identity -- the ability to share a portion of a work while protecting some parts of that portion from being reused.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Creative Commons lacks a concept like Product Identity -- the ability to share a portion of a work while protecting some parts of that portion from being reused.
You just do what Fate does -- make your SRD avaiable via CS.

One big reason (not the only reason) OGL is more popular than CC in the TTRPG industry is that (a) the OGL predates CC and (b) usin git you get access to WotC's SRD. If you're not bothered by the latter, the case for OGL is not nearly as strong.
 

rcade

Hero
You just do what Fate does -- make your SRD avaiable via CS.
I did not know Fate did that in order to use Creative Commons. It's very cool.

 

Yaarel

He Mage
But can't I get the same effect by declaring what is under CC?

No, not exactly.

Under a CC, if one includes modifications of Open Content, then one is required to make the modification Open Content as well.

By contrast, the OGL 1.0a allows a creator to integrate Open Content but still keep the new distinctive amalgamation part of the closed Product Identity.

(For example, the OGL 1.0a lets a creator protect a new distinctive subclass, despite it modifies the Open Content Class.)

In the OGL 1.0a, any contribution to the Open Content must be voluntary, and clearly marked.

Future users of an OGL 1.0a product can only monetize the clearly designated Open Content.
 

Under a CC, if one includes modifications of Open Content, then one is required to make the modification Open Content as well.
That would IMO only apply to CC licenses that include SA (share alike), e.g. CC-BY-SA. If you license your content as CC-BY (credit source), then there is no need to open up your own content as well.
Still, it would require a bit of extra work since you need to extract the shared content and make sure you don't accidentally share things you consider product identity.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top