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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rknop" data-source="post: 8904413" data-attributes="member: 20176">No.Content restrictions (like "no offensive stuff") absolutely do not belong in an open license.  You don't see anything like that in Creative Commons.  The open license needs to be just about the legal terms for what can be reused.    Trying to police tone and offensiveness will undermine it as an open license.What is offensive is both in the eyes of the beholder, and in the eyes of the cultural mores of the time.  They evolve.  There are two problems.  First, who gets to decide what's offensive?  If WotC gets to decide what's offensive for all "O"GL content, they have too much power.  If each individual publisher gets to specify what's offensive, then chaos reigns, and the ability to reuse things in the way that open license are supposed to enable becomes horribly tangled.It's not too hard to imagine, for instance, a company stating that no derivative work under the "O"GL can use the terms "demon" or "devil" -- after all, we have exactly a historical example of this having been considered too culturally offensive by the publisher of D&D.  Do you really want to make supposedly open game content subject to this?If it's left to the cultural mores of the time, then stuff that was licensed under the supposedly-open license will become to be seen as widely not available any more under that license.If you forbid any bigotry in open game content, could somebody write a WWII-based RPG?  Because bigotry was a pretty important factor in what was going on there.  Who gets to decide when bigotry is offensive vs. a part of the background that the authors aren't endorsing?I REALLY hope that Paizo et al. do not fall into the trap of wanting to put in an anti-bigotry clause into their open game license.  I'm not in favor of bigotry, but such concerns are separate concerns from the terms of sharing open content, and should not be conflated.</blockquote>

Verification