If BFRPG is going CC, I might as well - using their text instead of LL to create a minimalist B/X. Which I had already started but, oh well.

Or I might use Knave, which is already CC.

I just want some text I can copy and paste to describe the abilities, classes and some procedures. Come to think of it, I might disregard even that and write my own stuff (although I find writing my own definition of strength, dexterity, etc., a complete waste of time).

I'm not concerned in anyone else copying my ideas. Ideas are a dime a dozen and anyone can feel free to copy my stuff, just give me credit if using relevant bits (and if you don't, eh, I'm unlikely to get stressed over that).

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 14, 2023, 04:00:55 PM
I find writing my own definition of strength, dexterity, etc., a complete waste of time).

Most people know what Strength and Dexterity are. You don't really need much there.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 14, 2023, 04:00:55 PM
Come to think of it, I might disregard even that and write my own stuff (although I find writing my own definition of strength, dexterity, etc., a complete waste of time).

Strength and Dexterity is probably a waste of time, but Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma are worth defining so everyone is on the same page, and possibly renaming, depending on what you want each stat to represent. For instance does Wisdom represent willpower or perception? Does Charisma represent likeability or innate magical power?

Quote from: Venka on January 14, 2023, 01:34:57 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on January 13, 2023, 06:02:46 PM
Why would I ever trust people that hate me?

...Just because the authors, who (again we are assuming it's a good license) not actually responsible for how it is enforced, nor the only users of it, hate you? Who cares?

Because they hate me, so fuck them.

Look how the wokeoso's reacted to GrimJim's online petition just because it came from him?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And, because I can use something from people that don't hate me:

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 14, 2023, 04:00:55 PM
If BFRPG is going CC, I might as well - using their text instead of LL to create a minimalist B/X. Which I had already started but, oh well.
...

The hobby will have options. So Baizuo can go fuck itself with its 'ORC' corporate virtue signaling.

Quote from: Venka on January 14, 2023, 01:34:57 AM
Now I'm assuming the ORC is a great license.  ...

Why would you ever give people who hate you the benefit of the doubt?

Safer to assume nothing until the final draft is available for public consumption.

And quite frankly, I'm at the point with these wokeoso's that just the fact that they choose to name their anti-OGL after a monster rather than something neutral or virtuous, is just another signal of their true colors.

I see the value of an SRD (copy/paste) but what is the value of system neutral OGL?
What would make this OGL better than the creative Commons license?

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 15, 2023, 11:01:26 AM
I see the value of an SRD (copy/paste) but what is the value of system neutral OGL?
What would make this OGL better than the creative Commons license?

I concur that the OGL/ORC is only half the equation. The SRD is the other half and that's where the wait and see game comes in.  A license without content to be utilized is pointless.

CC license has been debated to death in other threads vs. OGL. Dancey and Co. went with a very specific type of license instead of a Creative common for simplicty and application of use.

Quote from: THE_Leopold on January 15, 2023, 11:14:45 AM
CC license has been debated to death in other threads vs. OGL. Dancey and Co. went with a very specific type of license instead of a Creative common for simplicty and application of use.

Yes it depends upon what is in the actual license but I've heard a lot of folks saying that the OGL prevented a lot of legal things and allowed things folks already were able to do legally. Basically the original was just a way of Wizards to say we won't sue so trust us now.

There is value in having Paizo get sued first but that is likely to happen OGL or not.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 14, 2023, 12:48:34 AM
The big thing with most Creative Commons licenses is they don't particularly care about distinguishing what the OGL called Product Identity.

Because Product Identity isn't a legally recognized category of intellectual property, and much of what #WotC claims as such aren't even registered Trademarks.

Quote from: Venka on January 14, 2023, 01:34:57 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on January 13, 2023, 06:02:46 PM
Why would I ever trust people that hate me?

The point is you shouldn't need to.

That's why contracts exist in the first place.

Quote from: migo on January 14, 2023, 06:25:33 AM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 13, 2023, 09:55:20 PM
If you don't like the morality clause you can remove it and release under a modified license.

Unless the license doesn't allow for modification, like OGL 1.0a.

Then call it something else because it's a different license once you modify it.

Quote from: Jaeger on January 14, 2023, 09:29:54 PM

Quote from: Venka on January 14, 2023, 01:34:57 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on January 13, 2023, 06:02:46 PM
Why would I ever trust people that hate me?

...Just because the authors, who (again we are assuming it's a good license) not actually responsible for how it is enforced, nor the only users of it, hate you? Who cares?

Because they hate me, so fuck them.

Look how the wokeoso's reacted to GrimJim's online petition just because it came from him?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

This is neither rational nor productive. The whole point of having a license is so you aren't required to like or trust anyone else.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 14, 2023, 08:11:59 AM
Take for example that the CC-by-SA 4.0 is "non-sublicensible" meaning a third party who wanted to make a third-party setting using my system could not create a license for contributors to that setting unless it had none of my content in it. The ability to sublicense was an important part of growing the OGL sphere that the CC-by-SA would have to be modified to address.

Despite use of the term the OGL 1.0a doesn't enable sublicensing either. What it's saying is that just because the license terminates for you doesn't mean it does so for anyone else who may be using your content, and in this respect it behaves no differently than CC-by-SA. I'm also not sure why they'd want to create a separate license as both licenses give them permission to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. And mechanics aren't protected by Copyright anyway, so that point is moot.