Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9645929" data-attributes="member: 8461">Yes, you can claim the CC-BY is less open than the OGL (mostly because, you know, it is). Even "crippled" Open Game Content still released the mechanics as OGC, and while having to create new names and write new flavor text was burdensome it was still better than having to create everything from scratch.See above. It's extremely disingenuous to say "what's the difference" when comparing a license which mandates releasing derivative content as open and one which doesn't; literally, that's the difference, and it's an important one. And while I'm glad you've dropped that ridiculous "mountains of broken content" idea and admitted that most publishers didn't release crippled OGC, the idea that most publishers will release the same degree of content under the CC-BY that they did under the OGL misses the point; there's a reason why the community looked down on publishers who closed as much content as possible, coming up with the "crippled content" moniker to express their derision for actions that were technically in compliance with the license but went against its spirit. I have yet to hear of anything like that being done for the CC-BY, suggesting a more general air of permissiveness for publishers who use open content without themselves making anything open.</blockquote>