Why not a CC license?

[schneeland]

So, short answer? ORC is just sexier.

No objection . Orcs not only have the better memes, I think the branding of ORC as OGL successor is much better, especially in the D&D-part of the RPG world (outside an in the NSR part of the OSR, I have seen CC more often for a while already, but I don't think that's an argument against ORC).

 

[Charlaquin]

No objection . Orcs not only have the better memes, I think the branding of ORC as OGL successor is much better, especially in the D&D-part of the RPG world (outside an in the NSR part of the OSR, I have seen CC more often for a while already, but I don't think that's an argument against ORC).

That makes sense, the NSR tends to be more willing to go outside the D&D box

 

[Yaarel]

Ok, I'll try.

My understanding of CC licenses is that while they generally promote sharing, they are actually more of a toolbox that allows non-lawyers to specify how content they created can be re-used in derived works in a legally sound way.
The building blocks are:

• BY = attribute/credit the author
• SA = "share alike" - derived work has to use the same "licensing" terms
• ND = no derivates - can only be used "as is"
• NC = no commercial use

From these blocks, CC built four licenses: CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-NC-SA, CC-BY-NC-ND.

Comparing it to the OGL 1.0(a), you can IMO achieve a similar licensing effect, if you remove all things you consider product identity from your SRD and share the remaining document under CC-BY license (which neither imposes sharing under the same conditions nor forbids commercial use). You might then also share what exactly you consider product identity in a separate document, but I don't think you have to. The important part is, of course, that you have to make sure that you really do not accidentally provide product identity parts in your SRD. Which is, of course, a less convenient than the OGL where you can simply declare the parts as product identity.

So, which CC configuration allows modifying Open content to create protected Product Identity?

 

[Matt Thomason]

Wait, you can access the SRD via git? Point me at the repository! Forks and pull requests ahoy!

Suddenly I felt so justified about keeping my own game system drafts in a git repo, and then... Oh.

 

[Matt Thomason]

So, which CC configuration allows modifying Open content to create protected Product Identity?

Yep, that's where CC falls over I believe. You're virally forcing every derivative work downstream to be 100% licensed under the same CC license, if I understand it correctly.

I create my new game. I release the game as fully copyrighted, I release an SRD as CC (any variant).

Anything you make using my SRD has to use the same CC license. There is no mechanism like the OGL has to designate only some parts, which is why I have to make that seperate SRD in the first place and can't just slap "only the rules mechanics are designated CC-licensed" on my corebook. If you want to use my SRD to create a Star Trek game under license from Paramount, you just can't do it because it would require you opening Paramount's IP under that CC license and getting sued into oblivion for it.

 

[Yaarel]

An other benefit of the OGL 1.0a has over CC, is the OGL protects the protected property better than the copyright laws can. If using the OGL, the user simply agrees to not use the Product Identity.

By contrast, CC would leave the "protected" content to the vagarity of ordinary copyright laws.

Several lawyers have pointed out, if other businesses no longer subscribe to the OGL 1.0a, then it becomes easier to reverse engineer every aspect of D&D "rules" and "concepts" without violating any copyright law. Hasbro-WotC has even less protection for the Intellectual Property now, without the OGL 1.0a.

 

[Matt Thomason]

An other benefit of the OGL 1.0a has over CC, is the OGL protects the protected property better than the copyright laws can. If using the OGL, the user simply agrees to not use the Product Identity.

By contrast, CC would leave the "protected" content to the vagarity of ordinary copyright laws.

Several lawyers have pointed out, if other businesses no longer subscribe to the OGL 1.0a, then it becomes easier to reverse engineer every aspect of D&D "rules" and "concepts" without violating any copyright law. Hasbro-WotC has even less protection for the Intellectual Property now, without the OGL 1.0a.

The first thing that comes to mind is that without the OGL, it is now possible for me to stick "For use with the Dungeons and Dragons[tm] Roleplaying Game by Wizards of the Coast[tm], trademarks used without permission." on my book under fair use to indicate compatibility (as long as I do it in such a way that does not make it look like it's by them or under that brand, so preferably on the back cover in a font that isn't larger than the rest of the text there.)

 

[Yaarel]

The first thing that comes to mind is that without the OGL, it is now possible for me to stick "For use with the Dungeons and Dragons[tm] Roleplaying Game by Wizards of the Coast[tm], trademarks used without permission." on my book under fair use to indicate compatibility (as long as I do it in such a way that does not make it look like it's by them or under that brand, so preferably on the back cover in a font that isn't larger than the rest of the text there.)

Similar statements like "compatible with D&D 5e" and "compare to D&D" are also legal, if not signing onto the OGL 1.0a contract.

 

[schneeland]

So, which CC configuration allows modifying Open content to create protected Product Identity?

Yep, that's where CC falls over I believe. You're virally forcing every derivative work downstream to be 100% licensed under the same CC license, if I understand it correctly.

As I tried to convey above: if you use something that is licensed as CC-BY, you are not required to share it again under a CC license. You only have to credit the author. And in your derivative work, you can then create things, you consider protected/product identity.

However, as the discussion already illustrates: the problem with CC licenses is that at least some people will assume they always have a copy-left/share-alike feature, even if the specific CC license does not. An OGL-like ORC license will probably not suffer from the same problem.