Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 8923166" data-attributes="member: 19857">This is all true, and there are a lot of examples of companies basically using the OGL as if it had no sharealike clause.However I will say that the OGL makes it a lot easier to share material than a CC-BY license does because with the OGL it's an &quot;opt out&quot; on what you're sharing, whereas with a CC-BY it's opt-in and you have to figure out how to designate what you're sharing instead of outlining explicitly what you're not sharing.CC-BY-SA is the absolute wrong license to use and would have had Wizards accused of bad faith if they'd done it. CC-BY-SA has no provision for opting anything out and so most companies wouldn't want to go near it.There's a real gap in the CC licenses where an OGL style &quot;opt out&quot; SA license would fit nicely. It does rely on people playing nice, but it doesn't put any extra barriers up for the folks who want to play nice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 8923166, member: 19857"] This is all true, and there are a lot of examples of companies basically using the OGL as if it had no sharealike clause. However I will say that the OGL makes it a lot easier to share material than a CC-BY license does because with the OGL it's an "opt out" on what you're sharing, whereas with a CC-BY it's opt-in and you have to figure out how to designate what you're sharing instead of outlining explicitly what you're not sharing. CC-BY-SA is the absolute wrong license to use and would have had Wizards accused of bad faith if they'd done it. CC-BY-SA has no provision for opting anything out and so most companies wouldn't want to go near it. There's a real gap in the CC licenses where an OGL style "opt out" SA license would fit nicely. It does rely on people playing nice, but it doesn't put any extra barriers up for the folks who want to play nice. [/QUOTE]

Verification