Quote from: Tod13 on April 09, 2023, 07:16:11 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 09, 2023, 07:13:00 PM
Someone help educate me. Why not release without using either?

If you cannot copyright rules, you don't need it. If you aren't creative enough to come up with your own shit, you shouldn't be a content creator. I seriously don't understand.

I kind of understand that too.

However, the biggest thing seems to be a desire to have some sort of legal protection. You say you can't copyright rules, but can you afford to defend that in court?

I'm not sure why, with stuff like CC we need another license, but I guess adding stuff like the anti-DRM component is nice.

Not to mention I trust the ORC license because it has everything laid out, nothing is ambiguous.  I trust WOTC as far as I can throw them.

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 09, 2023, 07:53:19 PM

Quote from: Tod13 on April 09, 2023, 07:16:11 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 09, 2023, 07:13:00 PM
Someone help educate me. Why not release without using either?

If you cannot copyright rules, you don't need it. If you aren't creative enough to come up with your own shit, you shouldn't be a content creator. I seriously don't understand.

I kind of understand that too.

However, the biggest thing seems to be a desire to have some sort of legal protection. You say you can't copyright rules, but can you afford to defend that in court?

I'm not sure why, with stuff like CC we need another license, but I guess adding stuff like the anti-DRM component is nice.

Not to mention I trust the ORC license because it has everything laid out, nothing is ambiguous.  I trust WOTC as far as I can throw them.

Oh, my comment was not at all in reference to the OGL. LOL I'm one of the people that never saw the point of using a license controlled by someone else. I came to Open Source licensing early, through software. (Without blindly worshiping open source though.) So a lot about RPG so-called "open" licenses confused me.

Quote from: FingerRod on April 09, 2023, 07:13:00 PM
Someone help educate me. Why not release without using either?

If you cannot copyright rules, you don't need it. If you aren't creative enough to come up with your own shit, you shouldn't be a content creator. I seriously don't understand.

It's a benefit to the company publishing under it because it gives 3rd party publishers the legal certainty to publish stuff compatible with the original product (as D&D demonstrated).

It's a benefit to the 3rd party/small creators because it gives legal certainty they will not be sued.

Sure, you can't copyright or patent rules, do you have the money to fight Paizo, Chaosium, etc? We already had this argument, it's called lawfare, and the chilling effect it has on the smaller fish.

No one is forcing you to use it, go hog wild my dude.

Quote from: Tod13 on April 09, 2023, 08:02:52 PM

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 09, 2023, 07:53:19 PM

Quote from: Tod13 on April 09, 2023, 07:16:11 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 09, 2023, 07:13:00 PM
Someone help educate me. Why not release without using either?

If you cannot copyright rules, you don't need it. If you aren't creative enough to come up with your own shit, you shouldn't be a content creator. I seriously don't understand.

I kind of understand that too.

However, the biggest thing seems to be a desire to have some sort of legal protection. You say you can't copyright rules, but can you afford to defend that in court?

I'm not sure why, with stuff like CC we need another license, but I guess adding stuff like the anti-DRM component is nice.

Not to mention I trust the ORC license because it has everything laid out, nothing is ambiguous.  I trust WOTC as far as I can throw them.

Oh, my comment was not at all in reference to the OGL. LOL I'm one of the people that never saw the point of using a license controlled by someone else. I came to Open Source licensing early, through software. (Without blindly worshiping open source though.) So a lot about RPG so-called "open" licenses confused me.

The OGL wasn't an open license but in name.

If you are in/use Open Source you should understand the benefits of a truly Open License.

People don't understand the CC licenses, so a license that gives them the ability to publish using other people's creations without fear of lawfare is a boon.

Quote from: Tod13 on April 09, 2023, 08:02:52 PM
Oh, my comment was not at all in reference to the OGL. LOL I'm one of the people that never saw the point of using a license controlled by someone else. I came to Open Source licensing early, through software. (Without blindly worshiping open source though.) So a lot about RPG so-called "open" licenses confused me.

Oh ok, makes sense.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 09, 2023, 08:13:21 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 09, 2023, 07:13:00 PM
Someone help educate me. Why not release without using either?

If you cannot copyright rules, you don't need it. If you aren't creative enough to come up with your own shit, you shouldn't be a content creator. I seriously don't understand.

It's a benefit to the company publishing under it because it gives 3rd party publishers the legal certainty to publish stuff compatible with the original product (as D&D demonstrated).

It's a benefit to the 3rd party/small creators because it gives legal certainty they will not be sued.

Sure, you can't copyright or patent rules, do you have the money to fight Paizo, Chaosium, etc? We already had this argument, it's called lawfare, and the chilling effect it has on the smaller fish.

No one is forcing you to use it, go hog wild my dude.

It isn't about having this argument again. The only argument against eschewing an OGL is fear. Kevin Crawford has published for years without an OGL. Whitehack just released their newest edition without it. The more who follow, the better.

The ORC license is stupid shit by people with egos who want their work in everybody's work moving forward.

I could release a license to breathe air outside and it would have the same relevance. Period.

Quote from: FingerRod on April 09, 2023, 09:34:09 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 09, 2023, 08:13:21 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 09, 2023, 07:13:00 PM
Someone help educate me. Why not release without using either?

If you cannot copyright rules, you don't need it. If you aren't creative enough to come up with your own shit, you shouldn't be a content creator. I seriously don't understand.

It's a benefit to the company publishing under it because it gives 3rd party publishers the legal certainty to publish stuff compatible with the original product (as D&D demonstrated).

It's a benefit to the 3rd party/small creators because it gives legal certainty they will not be sued.

Sure, you can't copyright or patent rules, do you have the money to fight Paizo, Chaosium, etc? We already had this argument, it's called lawfare, and the chilling effect it has on the smaller fish.

No one is forcing you to use it, go hog wild my dude.

It isn't about having this argument again. The only argument against eschewing an OGL is fear. Kevin Crawford has published for years without an OGL. Whitehack just released their newest edition without it. The more who follow, the better.

The ORC license is stupid shit by people with egos who want their work in everybody's work moving forward.

I could release a license to breathe air outside and it would have the same relevance. Period.

You're having the exact same argument tho.

Yes, Kevin Crawford doesn't use a license, how much third party material for his stuff is out there? Because the fear of getting sued by him (something he has said he wouldn't do) and yet he's gonna publish something under CC By (or was it CC0?) when he completes his current crowdfunding. Which will give people the legal certainty to publish 3rd party material.

But you go hog wild and publish your own take of Ravenloft and do not change any name.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 09, 2023, 10:18:42 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 09, 2023, 09:34:09 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 09, 2023, 08:13:21 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 09, 2023, 07:13:00 PM
Someone help educate me. Why not release without using either?

If you cannot copyright rules, you don't need it. If you aren't creative enough to come up with your own shit, you shouldn't be a content creator. I seriously don't understand.

It's a benefit to the company publishing under it because it gives 3rd party publishers the legal certainty to publish stuff compatible with the original product (as D&D demonstrated).

It's a benefit to the 3rd party/small creators because it gives legal certainty they will not be sued.

Sure, you can't copyright or patent rules, do you have the money to fight Paizo, Chaosium, etc? We already had this argument, it's called lawfare, and the chilling effect it has on the smaller fish.

No one is forcing you to use it, go hog wild my dude.

It isn't about having this argument again. The only argument against eschewing an OGL is fear. Kevin Crawford has published for years without an OGL. Whitehack just released their newest edition without it. The more who follow, the better.

The ORC license is stupid shit by people with egos who want their work in everybody's work moving forward.

I could release a license to breathe air outside and it would have the same relevance. Period.

You're having the exact same argument tho.

Yes, Kevin Crawford doesn't use a license, how much third party material for his stuff is out there? Because the fear of getting sued by him (something he has said he wouldn't do) and yet he's gonna publish something under CC By (or was it CC0?) when he completes his current crowdfunding. Which will give people the legal certainty to publish 3rd party material.

But you go hog wild and publish your own take of Ravenloft and do not change any name.

At times I enjoy talking with you. You are obviously intelligent. Other times you are abrasive as fuck. When did I say anything about releasing a game?

And how on earth did Kevin Crawford figure out how to release something with CC By (or CC0) without the benevolent ORC license?? /s

The ORC license serves no purpose. Publishers can use CC if they want to encourage third party. Fact.

Quote from: FingerRod on April 10, 2023, 09:11:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 09, 2023, 10:18:42 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 09, 2023, 09:34:09 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 09, 2023, 08:13:21 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 09, 2023, 07:13:00 PM
Someone help educate me. Why not release without using either?

If you cannot copyright rules, you don't need it. If you aren't creative enough to come up with your own shit, you shouldn't be a content creator. I seriously don't understand.

It's a benefit to the company publishing under it because it gives 3rd party publishers the legal certainty to publish stuff compatible with the original product (as D&D demonstrated).

It's a benefit to the 3rd party/small creators because it gives legal certainty they will not be sued.

Sure, you can't copyright or patent rules, do you have the money to fight Paizo, Chaosium, etc? We already had this argument, it's called lawfare, and the chilling effect it has on the smaller fish.

No one is forcing you to use it, go hog wild my dude.

It isn't about having this argument again. The only argument against eschewing an OGL is fear. Kevin Crawford has published for years without an OGL. Whitehack just released their newest edition without it. The more who follow, the better.

The ORC license is stupid shit by people with egos who want their work in everybody's work moving forward.

I could release a license to breathe air outside and it would have the same relevance. Period.

You're having the exact same argument tho.

Yes, Kevin Crawford doesn't use a license, how much third party material for his stuff is out there? Because the fear of getting sued by him (something he has said he wouldn't do) and yet he's gonna publish something under CC By (or was it CC0?) when he completes his current crowdfunding. Which will give people the legal certainty to publish 3rd party material.

But you go hog wild and publish your own take of Ravenloft and do not change any name.

At times I enjoy talking with you. You are obviously intelligent. Other times you are abrasive as fuck. When did I say anything about releasing a game?

And how on earth did Kevin Crawford figure out how to release something with CC By (or CC0) without the benevolent ORC license?? /s

The ORC license serves no purpose. Publishers can use CC if they want to encourage third party. Fact.

Yeah, sorry, it's the damn Aspergers. I'm sorry.

I'll ask again, how many 3rd party products are there for Kevin Crawford's products?

How many for D&D?

Make the same examination of ANY game that didn't embrace the OGL or had a similar license.

Kevin said he never thought about using a license but that he understood the certainty that one would bring, so while he would never sue anyone to give people the security that his descendants wouldn't either he was going to do the SRD thing.

An SRD under CC By because people don't understand the license and think they CAN'T declare stuff not covered by it in a book.

Quote from: FingerRod on April 09, 2023, 07:13:00 PM
Someone help educate me. Why not release without using either?

If you cannot copyright rules, you don't need it. If you aren't creative enough to come up with your own shit, you shouldn't be a content creator. I seriously don't understand.

The issue isn't necessarily with copyright, but trademark. Trademark law extends beyond the use of logos or brand names and dips into the more nebulous region of "brand recognition." The vagueness of the law around what constitutes "brand recognition" is why a license is desirable, since it dispenses with those vaguaries.

So while it's true that game mechanics cannot be copyrighted or trademarked, the names of those mechanics can collectively constitute a form of brand recognition. You could theoretically recreate the entire 5e system without using a license, changing each and every one of the game terms WotC uses, and be in the clear (lawfully speaking... WotC would still probably challenge your right to do so because they're assholes with deep pockets). But under current copyright/trademark law, it would be legal.

What the OGL 1.0a, ORC, and most other licenses do is grant limited use of trademarks, specifically those associated with "brand recognition" of game mechanics. Some licenses even allow the use of copyrighted material, granting permission to reprint certain language; notably, the Savage Worlds Fan license does not extend this benefit, instead allowing the licensee to merely "reference" the rules (i.e., use the game terms without reprinting what those rules are... buy the SW Core Rules if you that info). In other words, licenses provide a legal means to use the game terms that licensors place into the license. A license does not, however, grant or gatekeep any mechanics... only the terms associated with those mechanics.

Re: Sine Nomine
Sine Nomine uses the six-attribute spread popularized by DnD, but the rest of the system is radically different from anything DnD ever did. In short, there was never any issue of Kevin not using the OGL since there was no reasonable assumption he was infringing on any brand recognition. Simply using the six attributes, along with the classic terms, is not enough to claim infringment. It'd be like Coca Cola trying to sue another soda company for having red cans. It's ludicrus on its face. No reasonable person would read through a Sine Nomine book and think it was DnD unless they were an absolute muppet.

Hope this helps.

Geeky, no need to apologize. Like I said I find you intelligent and fun to talk to.

Effete, great post. Thank you.

Let me ask this another way.

If I released a game with CC By or some other form of CC license, would that do the trick?

Here is where I am getting hung up, and if you peel away the layers of the onion it gets to the heart of why I am probably coming across as a huge pain in the ass. I'm not releasing a game, but if I did, I wouldn't want WotC's name anywhere near my product. Because fuck them. I'm not going to put effort into making something and then put their name on my product.

With ORC, at first glance it looks good. I can read legalese (which there is a fair amount of) and it looks pretty solid. However, fuck them too. A good deal of those companies vilify and cancel people. I seriously detest a significant portion of the people behind it.

So if there is anyway CC means third party support is easy AND one doesn't need to give proxy credit WotC or ORC, I guess I don't see the point in the OGL. But I guess it sounds like CC doesn't do the full trick? Not even the way LotFP does it?

Quote from: FingerRod on April 11, 2023, 08:50:42 PM
Geeky, no need to apologize. Like I said I find you intelligent and fun to talk to.

Effete, great post. Thank you.

Let me ask this another way.

If I released a game with CC By or some other form of CC license, would that do the trick?

Here is where I am getting hung up, and if you peel away the layers of the onion it gets to the heart of why I am probably coming across as a huge pain in the ass. I'm not releasing a game, but if I did, I wouldn't want WotC's name anywhere near my product. Because fuck them. I'm not going to put effort into making something and then put their name on my product.

With ORC, at first glance it looks good. I can read legalese (which there is a fair amount of) and it looks pretty solid. However, fuck them too. A good deal of those companies vilify and cancel people. I seriously detest a significant portion of the people behind it.

So if there is anyway CC means third party support is easy AND one doesn't need to give proxy credit WotC or ORC, I guess I don't see the point in the OGL. But I guess it sounds like CC doesn't do the full trick? Not even the way LotFP does it?

IANAL: As I understand the CC By you can declare what parts of the work aren't under it, for instance the art, you might not want to put it under CC By or maybe you can't because of the copyright (you need to own the copyright of the work, so a public domain art piece can't be placed under CC By for example).

Thing is most people DO NOT understand what little legalese I understand and therefore they do not want to go near CC By.

As for ORC, agreed, fuck Baizuo and the other woketards, but the license isn't being managed by them, I don't recall seeing the name of any of them on it either. So, given the "issues" with CC By I think ORC is a good option, but to each their own.

In some thread about the OGL and/or licenses I put links to the CC By "for humans*" explanation from their own wiki and from an independent lawyer, fuck me if I remember which one much less in what page.

*It still leaves much to be desired, but to me it was clear enough, YMMV.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 11, 2023, 10:23:22 PM
IANAL: As I understand the CC By you can declare what parts of the work aren't under it, for instance the art, you might not want to put it under CC By or maybe you can't because of the copyright (you need to own the copyright of the work, so a public domain art piece can't be placed under CC By for example).

Thing is most people DO NOT understand what little legalese I understand and therefore they do not want to go near CC By.

I think you've got the situation pegged with your summary.

Let me add a wrinkle: to clarify which portions of any given game are properly CC-BY, they have to make a sanitized SRD with a CC-BY license attached that takes out any terms they might want to protect as brand identity. That's more work, and I think people don't prefer doing it.

Though I don't see much appeal in OGL-like licenses myself, they have the carry-forward thing which is a huge RPG culture thing, and the format allows for fairly easy specification of what is shareable, what is not shareable, or has been borrowed, without having to create a whole other "book."

If WotC ever gets around to releasing CC-BY SRDs of other editions (Basic/Expert, 2e, etc.), I suspect some budding RPG authors will pounce readily on using that content... and then license their books as ORC, haha. But I can't blame them. I'd do the same in their shoes, I'd think.

Quote from: Effete on April 10, 2023, 11:31:18 PM

Sine Nomine uses the six-attribute spread popularized by DnD, but the rest of the system is radically different from anything DnD ever did.

No it wasn't. Kevin specifically made it as close to D&D as possible so it was recognisable and a low barrier to entry.

Quote from: Effete on April 10, 2023, 11:31:18 PM
So while it's true that game mechanics cannot be copyrighted or trademarked, the names of those mechanics can collectively constitute a form of brand recognition. You could theoretically recreate the entire 5e system without using a license, changing each and every one of the game terms WotC uses, and be in the clear (lawfully speaking... WotC would still probably challenge your right to do so because they're assholes with deep pockets). But under current copyright/trademark law, it would be legal.

Close not quite how that legal theory. It is a copyright issue but it work like this.

You can't copyright the concept of Hit Points, Armor Class, Hit Dice, etc. individually or even the name if they are generic (which the example are). However there is an argument to be made that a specific combination of these mechanics is a creative expression thus protectable by copyright or trade dress. The more unique the combination the more it can be argued the entire system is a protectable creative expression.

So there is doubt that rewriting say the two B/X books in your own words keeps you clear of infringing the copyright of the original. But really the problem that actual court decisions testing "game mechanics are not copyrightable" are few and far between. And the scope of these decisions while encouraging it is not definitive. Also the US copyright office stating explicitly that game mechanics can't be copyrighted (only their expression) also helps.

So one impact of Open Licenses is to remove this doubt and uncertainty.