Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Matt Thomason" data-source="post: 8919797" data-attributes="member: 6777331">CC is pretty much out as far as using it as a drop-in replacement for the OGL.  That much has been made evident in the ORC licensing discussions - CC just doesn't have the mechanism needed to seperate Product Identity from Open Game Content.CC-BY is fine for publishing your work under, if you're happy for people to use 100% of that work.  CC-BY-SA is fine if you want to do that in a "chain" of works by different people.  Neither of those would be suitable for a work where you want to specify which bits are "open" and which are not.  You can use CC-BY if you produce a seperate SRD-like document by stripping your work down to just the things you want to share, and publish that - and that's extra work most publishers would sooner avoid.  Adding a paragraph to explain what is open and what is closed - that's far easier, but requires a license that uses that mechanism.  CC-BY-SA would be the worst possible option for most publishers, because it does not allow them to reuse the source material unless they also open all of their contributions under that same license - the mechanics, the setting, every line of text. In summary - CC-BY works fine for "root SRDs" of game systems, but doesn't provide a mechanism to indicate anything equivalent to "Open Game Content".  CC-BY-SA is too viral.  The system in the OGL worked exactly the way most publishers want to use it, and now we've seen some dangerous loopholes in the OGL we're working together on replicating that functionality as close as possible with ORC while closing those loopholes. (The biggest "loophole" of all being that the OGL is under the control - both in terms of copyright and the ability to create new versions of the license - of one company that is in competition with all the others using it.  We've certainly identified some other things we'd like reviewed, because this is the best chance we're going to have to "get it right this time.")</blockquote>

Verification