So this is a thing now. Paizo is contracting a law firm to write their own OGL, but this one goes further.
1. It has the language in it like, "In Perpetuity," and, "Irrevocable."
2. It is the same law firm that wrote the D&D OGL. Might even be the same lawyer.
3. The law firm will hold onto the license. They don't have skin in the RPG game, so they are less likely to, "I've altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it further."
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v?Paizo-Announces-SystemNeutral-Open-RPG-License (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v?Paizo-Announces-SystemNeutral-Open-RPG-License)
while I fully support the idea of a rock-solid OGL, Paizo is one of the primary reasons the RPG hobby is where it is today
Paizo and WOTC basically introduced the sanitized, hyper-woke, corporate, "Disney D&D" model to the public. While that brought in more people to the hobby, it also turned it into an activist-run, corporate / globalist sphere.
Paizo whining about Hasbro's changes to the OGL is like Robespierre being led to the guillotine
Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on January 13, 2023, 10:56:37 AM
while I fully support the idea of a rock-solid OGL, Paizo is one of the primary reasons the RPG hobby is where it is today
Paizo and WOTC basically introduced the sanitized, hyper-woke, corporate, "Disney D&D" model to the public. While that brought in more people to the hobby, it also turned it into an activist-run, corporate / globalist sphere.
Paizo whining about Hasbro's changes to the OGL is like Robespierre being led to the guillotine
There's a very fine line between "information wants to be free" and "if you play a cis-hetero shitlord human character, you're a racist!". Give Paizo enough rope to hang themselves with, if need be.
Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on January 13, 2023, 10:56:37 AM
while I fully support the idea of a rock-solid OGL, Paizo is one of the primary reasons the RPG hobby is where it is today
Paizo and WOTC basically introduced the sanitized, hyper-woke, corporate, "Disney D&D" model to the public. While that brought in more people to the hobby, it also turned it into an activist-run, corporate / globalist sphere.
Paizo whining about Hasbro's changes to the OGL is like Robespierre being led to the guillotine
This made me laugh. You're not wrong.
Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on January 13, 2023, 10:56:37 AM
while I fully support the idea of a rock-solid OGL, Paizo is one of the primary reasons the RPG hobby is where it is today
Paizo and WOTC basically introduced the sanitized, hyper-woke, corporate, "Disney D&D" model to the public. While that brought in more people to the hobby, it also turned it into an activist-run, corporate / globalist sphere.
Paizo whining about Hasbro's changes to the OGL is like Robespierre being led to the guillotine
The OGL is being held by a Lawfirm and eventually the SRD and License will be in a trust similar to the Linux Kernel.
Paizo is paying to make this happen.
Shit on Paizo all you want for being a woke, garbage tier, virtue signaling company but in this instance they are going about it The Right Way. No one publisher will ever hold this license to use against another.
Yeah, but then this shows everyone, while those assholes at Paizo called us all homophobes/nazi's/your-choice-of-ist - it shows that in their crusade for their woke bullshit, they fell back on protecting their dwindling precious gold. So much so, they even deigned to pay for us.
Maybe we're not the people they think we are? More likely maybe they always knew, but took their eyes off the ball in trying to strengthen the cult that was not there. Now they feel it's all hands on deck.
My opinion on Paizo is if they wanna market woke crap to the woke and tell us "our game is not for you"... it's their dime. If they don't want certain sales, it's a free country.
What Paizo is not doing with ORC is trying to dictate how other people buy, sell and play in the hobby. That puts them lightyears ahead of Hasbro who sought to shut down anyone who wouldn't follow their party line.
Hell, if there's no requirement to use their specific SRD tied to it, I might even use ORC as my replacement for the OGL (depending on the final terms obviously) so people can make and sell supplemental material for my own system.
Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on January 13, 2023, 10:56:37 AM
while I fully support the idea of a rock-solid OGL, Paizo is one of the primary reasons the RPG hobby is where it is today
Paizo and WOTC basically introduced the sanitized, hyper-woke, corporate, "Disney D&D" model to the public. While that brought in more people to the hobby, it also turned it into an activist-run, corporate / globalist sphere.
Paizo whining about Hasbro's changes to the OGL is like Robespierre being led to the guillotine
So... use the ORC to distribute based, shitlord gaming content just for the lulz. What's Paizo gonna do? They won't own the license, and with an IP law firm holding stewardship, I'm sure they KNOW nothing could be done.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 13, 2023, 12:16:31 PM
My opinion on Paizo is if they wanna market woke crap to the woke and tell us "our game is not for you"... it's their dime. If they don't want certain sales, it's a free country.
What Paizo is not doing with ORC is trying to dictate how other people buy, sell and play in the hobby. That puts them lightyears ahead of Hasbro who sought to shut down anyone who wouldn't follow their party line.
Hell, if there's no requirement to use their specific SRD tied to it, I might even use ORC as my replacement for the OGL (depending on the final terms obviously) so people can make and sell supplemental material for my own system.
Yeah. It looks like the ORC is going to be what the OGL
should have been: a truly unfettered license where ANY game publisher can share their content to promote compatibility and healthy competition. The OGL defaulted to being a DnD content machine because a) DnD had the market-share /popularity /built-in consumer base, and b) WotC owned the license, which generated confusion over how it could be used. Even during the conversation on this forum a couple people have conflated the OGL with the SRD, which are completely separate documents.
I'm not a Paizo gamer. I don't think a overly long and crunchy version of D&D sounds any better than dealing directly with D&D, another game I'm not interested in. Never have.
I go indie or even OSR.
Still, this move to make their own ORC license does impress me. Not enough to buy their games, but I'm impressed.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 13, 2023, 10:26:24 AM
"I've altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it further."
You really need to add this as a meme to the thread we have for that purpose. It's perfect.
Quote from: Effete on January 13, 2023, 12:30:41 PM
Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on January 13, 2023, 10:56:37 AM
while I fully support the idea of a rock-solid OGL, Paizo is one of the primary reasons the RPG hobby is where it is today
Paizo and WOTC basically introduced the sanitized, hyper-woke, corporate, "Disney D&D" model to the public. While that brought in more people to the hobby, it also turned it into an activist-run, corporate / globalist sphere.
Paizo whining about Hasbro's changes to the OGL is like Robespierre being led to the guillotine
So... use the ORC to distribute based, shitlord gaming content just for the lulz. What's Paizo gonna do? They won't own the license, and with an IP law firm holding stewardship, I'm sure they KNOW nothing could be done.
AFTER you read the damn thing and you're 1000% sure it doesn't "try to create an safe and inclusive community". Else go CC By SA.
Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on January 13, 2023, 10:56:37 AM
"Disney D&D" model to the public. While that brought in more people to the hobby, it also turned it into an activist-run, corporate / globalist sphere.
I'd heard it was Critical Role and Stranger Things that brought people in.
Even if ORC 1.0 doesn't include a woke clause, the idea is to create a non-profit to own the license, not to leave it with the law firm. If the open-source software world is of any example, these non-profit are easily captured by activists. And that would be specially easily if the key people of this non-profit come from the companies already onboard the ORC train, all of them at least on the yellow list of that other thread. So, even if the jurisprudence says the ORC 1.0 is ironclad now, why would one trust his work to a license owned by an organization full of people who thinks you are deplorable?
Quote from: zer0th on January 13, 2023, 02:39:33 PM
Even if ORC 1.0 doesn't include a woke clause, the idea is to create a non-profit to own the license, not to leave it with the law firm. If the open-source software world is of any example, these non-profit are easily captured by activists. And that would be specially easily if the key people of this non-profit come from the companies already onboard the ORC train, all of them at least on the yellow list of that other thread. So, even if the jurisprudence says the ORC 1.0 is ironclad now, why would one trust his work to a license owned by an organization full of people who thinks you are deplorable?
I would only trust the wording of the licence.
Although admittedly I do think that being threatened/sued by a bunch of woke activists at a non-profit seems immensely less threatening than being sued by Hasbro. Those guys tweet a good game but they tend to be extremely lazy when it comes to doing the work, and putting a lawsuit together takes effort.
But anyway it would be the company whose IP I was using who'd presumably want to sue, with some reeing from the nonprofit. Any way you look at it, nothing like Hasbro both holding the IP and claiming to be able to make the licence mean whatever they want.
If the license is written correctly, it doesn't matter. Either the justice system will enforce the license, and you're free and clear for declaring that orcs are a race (WotC believes this is racist), that some races have penalties or bonuses, even to Intelligence (a lot of proto-woke guys ran away from this), or even that female fighters can't have above 18/51 (or whatever it was in AD&D) strength (much of the industry argues that this is sexist, and I'm not even aware of an OSR entry with caps or penalties to strength for human females)....
Or, the justice system will decide against you for being an ebil knot-see debil-man, regardless of what the law says.
So a good license either keeps everyone free, or it gets swept away along with your right to breathe The People's Oxygen. Since the latter isn't something you can solve with a license, you focus on what CAN be solved with a license.
And as a further aside- in the software world, we've seen leftists, social justice warriors, and the latter day woketards infest the SHIT out of many free and open source software groups. We've seen them enforce "codes of conduct" meant to kick out white men, or even explicitly allow racism (as long as it is anti-white opinions exclusively) and sexism (as long as it is anti-male opinions exclusively), and we've seen them engage in retarded renaming schemes, such as changing the name of "master" or "whitelist". But for all their great labors, they've never managed to fuck with the licensing, and I think they know it's because it would actually fuck up their golden goose.
Which brings us back to the ORC. There is no ORC. There's an announcement to CREATE said ORC, and they've told us nothing about it except that it will be irrevocable and meant to be held by the Linux Foundation or similar eventually. These are not groups that enforce their leftist politics with software licenses, so it's extremely likely that the plan is that the ORC will not include such language. As a policy without a specific company on top, it would be difficult to write stuff anyway. For instance, if the ORC exists and allows me to publish under it BUT Paizo is a nanny entity that can scold me for applying a cap to female strength by taking away my rights, then they haven't granted me any irrevocable rights in the first place. And if the nanny entity is whomever ostensible owns said rights, then do I get sued by an arbitrary number of them? I'm sure there's a way that a lawyer could write it to try to punish normal people, but I just don't think it would pass muster as an open license.
We are months away from seeing whether the goal of the ORC is to create open gaming, or do something nefarious. Thus far, every single thing Paizo has announced sounds absolutely perfect and good, without any holes left for politics or other retarded shit. Just because Paizo is wokesters who have tried to get rid of the lich's phylactery (offense to Jews, see), and race (replaced with ancestry, super double racist, see), does not mean that they will inject this crap into an open source license.
So I'm cautiously hopeful.
Hasbro leading with "well the REAL reason the OGL 1.0a needs to be replaced is, cis male whites" is obviously crap, and they are hoping to fool everyone with it. Even the reddit threads don't seem to be taken in on that, which is absolutely shocking given how infected an anus reddit is.
Quote from: THE_Leopold on January 13, 2023, 11:13:22 AM
The OGL is being held by a Lawfirm and eventually the SRD and License will be in a trust similar to the Linux Kernel.
Paizo is paying to make this happen.
Shit on Paizo all you want for being a woke, garbage tier, virtue signaling company but in this instance they are going about it The Right Way. No one publisher will ever hold this license to use against another.
Are they?
This move by Baizuo is done out of pure cynical self-interest.
Baizuo was 100% down with the status quo until WotC threatened to take their OGL toy away.
As others have pointed out; Baizuo is, and always has been a pack of woke weasels.
This is just a cunning PR move to portray themselves as the POC paladin riding in to save the day.
Literally:(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmTrGYdXgAAOayN?format=jpg&name=900x900)
If they didn't do an alternate OGL, another 3pp would have. They were all talking about it before Baizuo's calculated corporate virtue-signal jump to the front of the train.
Now all the bad press about their cutthroat internal business practices, and nasty corporate culture that came out of the unionizing scandal has all been washed away and made clean.
Well played Baizuo, well played...
Quote from: Jaeger on January 13, 2023, 03:07:14 PMAre they?
This move by Baizuo is done out of pure cynical self-interest.
Baizuo was 100% down with the status quo until WotC threatened to take their OGL toy away.
I was thinking the same thing yet I see so many people praising Paizo for just doing what they need to do to survive.
The thing is, because you can't copyright game mechanics, the only point of a OGL (or ORC) is to offer some protection against lawsuits should the owner of the IP decide to sue. Yet the only company who profits from a lawsuit in this situation is Hasbro. There's no way that Paizo will sue a company making Pathfinder adventures as that would set the precedent that they couldn't do it either.
Therefore, any company that is willing to release their game content through some iron clad OGL, is a game company that wouldn't sue people for making products for their game. These open gaming licences only protect people that don't need protection. IOW, they are completely pointless unless WotC uses them.
It would be better for everyone if companies just created a simple license agreement that gave permission to others to make products for their game. That way they can allow the 3rd party publishers to use certain aspects of the Product Identity without worrying about that IP becoming open just by requiring the inclusion of some sort of "Copyright Paizo used with permission".
I don't trust Paizo. They will inevitably jam in their politics. There will be a tranny clause, a Harrison Bergeron Clause, etc. There's no way they don't jump at the chance to virtue signal in their license. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Quote from: JRR on January 13, 2023, 03:52:10 PM
I don't trust Paizo. They will inevitably jam in their politics. There will be a tranny clause, a Harrison Bergeron Clause, etc. There's no way they don't jump at the chance to virtue signal in their license. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
It's a distinct possibility yes, it's why I'm holding my praise for Paizo until we can see the actual text of the ORC to see if there's anything like that or not.
Don't sign a contract with those evil Nazis, sign one with us, the fun-loving Communists! Our gulags have ABC *and* CBS!
Quote from: JRR on January 13, 2023, 03:52:10 PM
I don't trust Paizo. They will inevitably jam in their politics. There will be a tranny clause, a Harrison Bergeron Clause, etc. There's no way they don't jump at the chance to virtue signal in their license. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
So how do you think they would do this? Remember the ORC is meant to be held by a non-profit, for the stated goal of being open. Lets compare it to an existing license with a somewhat wokeist clause, Monte Cook's Cypher system.
https://csol.montecookgames.com/license/
Neither the Work nor any advertising, promotions, press releases, or other documents affiliated with the Work may contain racist, homophobic, discriminatory, or other repugnant views; overt political agendas or views; depictions or descriptions of criminal violence against children; rape or other acts of criminal perversion; or other obscene material.Now, lets say you make a product with a race of transhumans who are born subservient and pretty, and get emotional pleasure from obeying commands. Lets assume it also has a race of transhumans who are born strong and violent, with an inborn hatred for normal people. Would Monte Cook be mad enough to take you to court for your serial-number-filed-off, name-change versions of Sine Nomine's
Houri and
Anakim? These make a case for genetic tinkering that results in problematic changes to humans, after all- the foundation of racism as at least some people with Monte Cook's outlook and opinions would view it.
So lets assume he hates it, and bitches loudly about it on twitter, to thunderous upcummies and re-bleats. But you continue to sell your product and don't back down. Now since in this hypothetical you published under his license, he has to take you to court to make you stop, and he has to ultimately claim you don't have the right to use his copyrighted stuff (which in this example you did, you used his license and presumably some of his things). You and Monte Cook are now in some awful court, where he is trying to claim that your imaginary creatures are racist, and therefore the product is racist, and therefore in violation, and therefore the rest of the license (which grants you the ability to use his stuff) doesn't apply. A sane court would throw him out for such nonsense, but really, do you know if you'll have a sane court?
Ok, so that's how this would all work with the Monte Cook license. This is because Monte Cook's company owns and issues that license, similar to WotC and the OGL (it even has about the same language about "authorized versions", though of course, they would never pretend it was suddenly revocable as WotC has done- my point is just that it's mostly a lightly altered OGL that they issued).
The ORC isn't supposed to be owned by Paizo or any of the other companies, it's supposed to be a common ground.
How could it accomplish this with said wokester clause? What would it even
LOOK like?
Quote from: Effete on January 13, 2023, 12:30:41 PM
Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on January 13, 2023, 10:56:37 AM
while I fully support the idea of a rock-solid OGL, Paizo is one of the primary reasons the RPG hobby is where it is today
Paizo and WOTC basically introduced the sanitized, hyper-woke, corporate, "Disney D&D" model to the public. While that brought in more people to the hobby, it also turned it into an activist-run, corporate / globalist sphere.
Paizo whining about Hasbro's changes to the OGL is like Robespierre being led to the guillotine
So... use the ORC to distribute based, shitlord gaming content just for the lulz. What's Paizo gonna do? They won't own the license, and with an IP law firm holding stewardship, I'm sure they KNOW nothing could be done.
They might still include the clause about bigoted content. Unless they realise it's ripe for abuse and people won't trust it with such a clause.
Quote from: Venka on January 13, 2023, 04:45:10 PMThe ORC isn't supposed to be owned by Paizo or any of the other companies, it's supposed to be a common ground.
How could it accomplish this with said wokester clause? What would it even LOOK like?
An open gaming license by itself doesn't do anything. It only functions if a company releases content using that license. So any restrictions to the use of the content comes from the company that originally produced it. I don't see why any company would release their content using a license if they end up with no control over how it is used. They might as well just release it to the Public Domain.
I will laugh if people go from one teat to another and end up sucking down the same sour milk.
Quote from: FingerRod on January 13, 2023, 05:30:41 PM
I will laugh if people go from one teat to another and end up sucking down the same sour milk.
Yeah. That seems to be the real issue, doesn't it? The math will sort itself out I'm sure. It's about to be the Jungle again... and now everyone gets to eat what they kill.
Quote from: Venka on January 13, 2023, 04:45:10 PM
So how do you think they would do this? Remember the ORC is meant to be held by a non-profit, for the stated goal of being open. ...
Who cares?
Why would I ever trust people that hate me?
Looks like Pinnacle Games weighed in and they're supporting ORC if only to be supportive. It has nothing to do with their own licensing system.
(https://i.imgur.com/DMxdSZd.png)
Quote from: tenbones on January 13, 2023, 08:18:03 PM
Looks like Pinnacle Games weighed in and they're supporting ORC if only to be supportive. It has nothing to do with their own licensing system.
(https://i.imgur.com/DMxdSZd.png)
How do you kill a 500 pounds Gorilla?
With a hundred 50 pounds Chimps.
Not peyorative, just keeping it to the primate theme.
on the plus side... it looks like I might be doing the Savage Worlds Talislanta add-on for the new Epic Edition Kickstarter that will be dropping in the near future...
Sounds interesting but... why not use Creative Commons instead?
Since the demise of the OGL apparently wrecked a few books I had started writing, I might use either, but I'm inclined towards CC.
If I can copy/paste some PF text from ORC, it might make my job easier, however. Not sure.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 13, 2023, 09:22:55 PM
Sounds interesting but... why not use Creative Commons instead?
Since the demise of the OGL apparently wrecked a few books I had started writing, I might use either, but I'm inclined towards CC.
If I can copy/paste some PF text from ORC, it might make my job easier, however. Not sure.
To me it all depends on the text of the license itself, is it really open? does it have a morality clause?
BFRPG is switching to CC By SA, I might do the same, my games so far have exactly zero WotC sludge.
Quote from: zer0th on January 13, 2023, 02:39:33 PM
why would one trust his work to a license owned by an organization full of people who thinks you are deplorable?
Quote from: JRR on January 13, 2023, 03:52:10 PM
I don't trust Paizo. They will inevitably jam in their politics.
If you don't like the morality clause you can remove it and release under a
modified license. Because the rights granted through these licenses are by and between contributors, not named entities. And writing a contract doesn't give you the power to revoke it at will, especially when you're not even a party to it. Thing is I don't think they
will add such a clause because it would complicate enforcement, discourage publishers from signing on, and could very well lead to situations where they
themselves run afoul of it.
My bet is they will keep it as simple as possible to get as many publishers on board as possible, and worry about the morality when it comes to their trademark and 'community content' licenses like they currently do.
Quote from: tenbones on January 13, 2023, 08:51:58 PM
on the plus side... it looks like I might be doing the Savage Worlds Talislanta add-on for the new Epic Edition Kickstarter that will be dropping in the near future...
Cool.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 13, 2023, 09:55:20 PM
Quote from: zer0th on January 13, 2023, 02:39:33 PM
why would one trust his work to a license owned by an organization full of people who thinks you are deplorable?
Quote from: JRR on January 13, 2023, 03:52:10 PM
I don't trust Paizo. They will inevitably jam in their politics.
If you don't like the morality clause you can remove it and release under a modified license. Because the rights granted through these licenses are by and between contributors, not named entities. And writing a contract doesn't give you the power to revoke it at will, especially when you're not even a party to it. Thing is I don't think they will add such a clause because it would complicate enforcement, discourage publishers from signing on, and could very well lead to situations where they themselves run afoul of it.
My bet is they will keep it as simple as possible to get as many publishers on board as possible, and worry about the morality when it comes to their trademark and 'community content' licenses like they currently do.
Quote from: tenbones on January 13, 2023, 08:51:58 PM
on the plus side... it looks like I might be doing the Savage Worlds Talislanta add-on for the new Epic Edition Kickstarter that will be dropping in the near future...
Cool.
Well, since publishing WITHOUT the OGL gives you the right to say your shit is compatible with theirs I'm hopping for a madlad/shitlord to publish the more edgy shit they can and put on the cover it's compatible with D&D 5e.
It would be hilarious to see them run around like decapitated chickens.
Quote from: migo on January 13, 2023, 04:49:29 PM
Quote from: Effete on January 13, 2023, 12:30:41 PM
So... use the ORC to distribute based, shitlord gaming content just for the lulz. What's Paizo gonna do? They won't own the license, and with an IP law firm holding stewardship, I'm sure they KNOW nothing could be done.
They might still include the clause about bigoted content. Unless they realise it's ripe for abuse and people won't trust it with such a clause.
They might, true. And then it would come down to the wording. Perhaps it's just that you couldn't release bigoted content as Open Content. Then it's perfectly fine within the license to have bigoted content in book and classified as Product Identity.
But I digress.
Such a clause would be stupid because how would it be enforcable? Who would enforce it? The goal of an open source license is to say, "This stuff can be used freely, and this stuff cannot." Then any disputes would stem from breaching that agreement on a peer-to-peer level (i.e., using someone's protected content). There is already likely to be a clause dealing with actually illegal material. Policing hatespeech doesn't belong in a open license.
But, I will agree, there's a distinct possibility, given the company we're talking about here. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
I don't like or trust Paizo, and while that probably doesn't affect ORC, I don't know what ORC could offer that one of the many CC licenses can't offer. The biggest one I can think of is simply familiarity among people who'd use it -- And it's basically impossible for ORC to beat out CC-licenses that are commonly used in all kinds of fields.
To me this is basically a way for Paizo to boost their public image & ideology (notice how they promoted themselves with the announcement) and less about benefiting the hobby.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 13, 2023, 01:41:30 PM
AFTER you read the damn thing and you're 1000% sure it doesn't "try to create an safe and inclusive community". Else go CC By SA.
CC by SA is different in that the OGL 1.0 delineated between content covered by the license and not covered by the license.
Which I think is essential for many kinds of RPG material.
Quote from: Zelen on January 13, 2023, 11:39:27 PM
I don't like or trust Paizo, and while that probably doesn't affect ORC, I don't know what ORC could offer that one of the many CC licenses can't offer. The biggest one I can think of is simply familiarity among people who'd use it -- And it's basically impossible for ORC to beat out CC-licenses that are commonly used in all kinds of fields.
To me this is basically a way for Paizo to boost their public image & ideology (notice how they promoted themselves with the announcement) and less about benefiting the hobby.
The big thing with most Creative Commons licenses is they don't particularly care about distinguishing what the OGL called Product Identity.
I want people to be able to use my rules mechanics, the general background fluff, and monsters word for word to be able to easily make and sell their own content for my system. I even want people to be able to indicate compatibility with my system as they're selling it. I don't want them to be able to use the specific "Old Praetoria" region, nor the specific settlements and NPCs that reside within it. Those are mine for writing my own adventures and supplements for my books.
Basically, you don't get to kill off the First Warden of the Free Cities and say his daughter was taken off to be a sex slave (an extreme example to make the point) in your supplement because I opened up the rules and most of the broader fluff text to you to sell your own products. If you want those story elements in your adventure, you can just create your own region in the setting and do it with your own original characters.
Also, from my reading of the various CC licenses, don't take into account third party licensed material that might be included that you have no right to release under a CC license in the first place (ex. artwork commissioned from third parties who retain their rights to their original works as part of your license with them).
That is because, by and large, the CC licenses are intended for individuals to share their creations. They are not well designed for collaborative ventures involving multiple contributors with third-party licensed material included in them.
The old OGL made dealing with these issues easy because it WAS written to deal with those factors. I could simply declare "the artwork, logos and proper names of locations and characters within the books are product identity." Done. You are now free to use every aspect of my book I made open while I and other third-party license holders retain the rights to the parts we wish to retain rights to.
To get the same out of a CC-by-SA license I have to assemble separate versions of each book where I've stripped out all the material and artwork I don't want placed under the under the CC-by-SA license in order to prevent conflicts with third-party licenses or to retain my product identity. I then need to publish and host that as a separate work.
-OR-
I can use a license that recognizes a product identity vs. open content divide in its basic structure and deal with the matter with a single sentence of plain text.
I was always going to have an open license for my system that did what I wanted it to]... but if Paizo and others want to make an alternative open license and
it does what I need it to then I don't need to pay a lawyer to do basically the same thing. I'll be reading it quite carefully when its released, but if it does what I need, why should I go the strugglebus route of having to publish twice as many books or pay a lawyer to get my licensing to work the way I want it to?
Quote from: DocJones on January 14, 2023, 12:18:11 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 13, 2023, 01:41:30 PM
AFTER you read the damn thing and you're 1000% sure it doesn't "try to create an safe and inclusive community". Else go CC By SA.
CC by SA is different in that the OGL 1.0 delineated between content covered by the license and not covered by the license.
Which I think is essential for many kinds of RPG material.
Except brand, art, etc the rest of this book is under the CC By SA 4.0 International
where's the difference?
I can declare what's not under it just like in the OGL.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 14, 2023, 12:50:29 AM
Quote from: DocJones on January 14, 2023, 12:18:11 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 13, 2023, 01:41:30 PM
AFTER you read the damn thing and you're 1000% sure it doesn't "try to create an safe and inclusive community". Else go CC By SA.
CC by SA is different in that the OGL 1.0 delineated between content covered by the license and not covered by the license.
Which I think is essential for many kinds of RPG material.
Except brand, art, etc the rest of this book is under the CC By SA 4.0 International
where's the difference?
I can declare what's not under it just like in the OGL.
Really? Show me where in the license it says that? Because I've read it several times now and it seems pretty clear as I read it that it covers everything in the document its attached to and as SA it also has to apply to everything someone makes that it derivative of it.
CC-by-SA is designed for you to give away everything free forever.
It is not well designed for you to be able to selectively release content to allow both yourself and other creators to profit off the mechanical and broad fluff elements being easily available to third parties without fear of infringement while retaining rights to other aspects of the production.
CC-by-SA is for people looking to be altruistic with their content. Something like the old OGL (and hopefully the new ORC and definitely whatever I use) was intended to foster a safe commercial environment where shared mechanics and basic setting fluff allow everyone to make some money by using the material.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 14, 2023, 01:08:23 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 14, 2023, 12:50:29 AM
Quote from: DocJones on January 14, 2023, 12:18:11 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 13, 2023, 01:41:30 PM
AFTER you read the damn thing and you're 1000% sure it doesn't "try to create an safe and inclusive community". Else go CC By SA.
CC by SA is different in that the OGL 1.0 delineated between content covered by the license and not covered by the license.
Which I think is essential for many kinds of RPG material.
Except brand, art, etc the rest of this book is under the CC By SA 4.0 International
where's the difference?
I can declare what's not under it just like in the OGL.
Really? Show me where in the license it says that? Because I've read it several times now and it seems pretty clear as I read it that it covers everything in the document its attached to and as SA it also has to apply to everything someone makes that it derivative of it.
CC-by-SA is designed for you to give away everything free forever.
It is not well designed for you to be able to selectively release content to allow both yourself and other creators to profit off the mechanical and broad fluff elements being easily available to third parties without fear of infringement while retaining rights to other aspects of the production.
CC-by-SA is for people looking to be altruistic with their content. Something like the old OGL (and hopefully the new ORC and definitely whatever I use) was intended to foster a safe commercial environment where shared mechanics and basic setting fluff allow everyone to make some money by using the material.
Not your brand and copyright dude, much less art you have no right to release under it.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/navigating-creative-commons-licensing
Edited to add:
"Specify precisely what it is you are licensing.
Any given work has multiple elements; e.g., text, images, music. Make sure to clearly mark or indicate in a notice which of those are covered by the license."
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees#Considerations_for_licensors (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees#Considerations_for_licensors)
Again, no using CC By SA doesn't put everything under that license by force, that would be stupid and would limit the possible uses of the licence.
You have to specify what IS under it from your book, because obviously you might use stuff you don't own and have therefore no right to put under it.
So, writting that with the exception of XYZ that's trademark, ZYX that's copyright you, the art, whatever the rest of the book is under the license.
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. Pretend the license does everything you would want out of a license- then there will be people that hate you using that license, but also lots of normal people. If it's something like the GPL or a creative commons license, then why NOT use it? 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?
Now I'm assuming the ORC is a great license. Everything we have heard is great. But it may end up being bad- it doesn't exist yet. But if it's good, it can serve as an actual creative baseline that everyone can use, not just one political faction. So yea, you should consider it, if it's good.
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.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 14, 2023, 01:34:07 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 14, 2023, 01:08:23 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 14, 2023, 12:50:29 AM
Quote from: DocJones on January 14, 2023, 12:18:11 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 13, 2023, 01:41:30 PM
AFTER you read the damn thing and you're 1000% sure it doesn't "try to create an safe and inclusive community". Else go CC By SA.
CC by SA is different in that the OGL 1.0 delineated between content covered by the license and not covered by the license.
Which I think is essential for many kinds of RPG material.
Except brand, art, etc the rest of this book is under the CC By SA 4.0 International
where's the difference?
I can declare what's not under it just like in the OGL.
Really? Show me where in the license it says that? Because I've read it several times now and it seems pretty clear as I read it that it covers everything in the document its attached to and as SA it also has to apply to everything someone makes that it derivative of it.
CC-by-SA is designed for you to give away everything free forever.
It is not well designed for you to be able to selectively release content to allow both yourself and other creators to profit off the mechanical and broad fluff elements being easily available to third parties without fear of infringement while retaining rights to other aspects of the production.
CC-by-SA is for people looking to be altruistic with their content. Something like the old OGL (and hopefully the new ORC and definitely whatever I use) was intended to foster a safe commercial environment where shared mechanics and basic setting fluff allow everyone to make some money by using the material.
Not your brand and copyright dude, much less art you have no right to release under it.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/navigating-creative-commons-licensing
Edited to add:
"Specify precisely what it is you are licensing.
Any given work has multiple elements; e.g., text, images, music. Make sure to clearly mark or indicate in a notice which of those are covered by the license."
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees#Considerations_for_licensors (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees#Considerations_for_licensors)
Again, no using CC By SA doesn't put everything under that license by force, that would be stupid and would limit the possible uses of the licence.
You have to specify what IS under it from your book, because obviously you might use stuff you don't own and have therefore no right to put under it.
So, writting that with the exception of XYZ that's trademark, ZYX that's copyright you, the art, whatever the rest of the book is under the license.
It would be nice if the Creative Commons site actually said this and not third party legal sites (LegalZoom.com) and a wiki there is no link to from the actual Creative Commons site.
Because if all you have is the legal documents and what's on the CC website, it provides no such explanations. Most people aren't going to seek out LegalZoom or a wiki that doesn't even come up on the first page of search results for "Creative Commons" for answers. They're going to read what the CC site says and conclude that their options won't work for them and move on to other options.
Because again... there is nothing IN the license itself or the documentation available on the CC site itself indicating how to assign it to something like a book piecemeal manner. That you are aware of a means is only via third-parties and obscure wikis (and yes, if a wiki for a subject isn't on the first page of a search on the topic, it's obscure) doesn't make it something obvious to others.
Also still not sure CC-by-SA is what I'd want anyway, as I want people to be able to sell their works made to be compatible with my works and SA implies any derivative works have to be released under CC-by-SA themselves. The entire point for me is for the license to serve the same purpose that the OGL1 did for WotC back in the day... allow third parties to make money for themselves as they encourage sales of my core books.
I'll admit that part of it could just be my mindset. I design bespoke game systems for every campaign I run. I don't just grab a "generic system" and try to hammer it into a functional game unless the assumed genre is already very close.
A general purpose public license feels like a "generic system" to me. Like it's built to cover broad areas, but might not actually cover something important to a more specific product.
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.
I get that you love and adore the Creative Commons. It does not make it the ubiquitous best answer to all licensing matters. Sometimes a genuine bespoke (or at least industry tailored) license will better address the specific interests of two parties or an industry better.
I'm not automatically signing onto ORC. I'll wait to see all its terms and conditions. But none of the CC licenses felt right to me on their own and that's important to me as a content creator... to be 100% comfortable with any license agreement I decide to use.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 14, 2023, 08:11:59 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 14, 2023, 01:34:07 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 14, 2023, 01:08:23 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 14, 2023, 12:50:29 AM
Quote from: DocJones on January 14, 2023, 12:18:11 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 13, 2023, 01:41:30 PM
AFTER you read the damn thing and you're 1000% sure it doesn't "try to create an safe and inclusive community". Else go CC By SA.
CC by SA is different in that the OGL 1.0 delineated between content covered by the license and not covered by the license.
Which I think is essential for many kinds of RPG material.
Except brand, art, etc the rest of this book is under the CC By SA 4.0 International
where's the difference?
I can declare what's not under it just like in the OGL.
Really? Show me where in the license it says that? Because I've read it several times now and it seems pretty clear as I read it that it covers everything in the document its attached to and as SA it also has to apply to everything someone makes that it derivative of it.
CC-by-SA is designed for you to give away everything free forever.
It is not well designed for you to be able to selectively release content to allow both yourself and other creators to profit off the mechanical and broad fluff elements being easily available to third parties without fear of infringement while retaining rights to other aspects of the production.
CC-by-SA is for people looking to be altruistic with their content. Something like the old OGL (and hopefully the new ORC and definitely whatever I use) was intended to foster a safe commercial environment where shared mechanics and basic setting fluff allow everyone to make some money by using the material.
Not your brand and copyright dude, much less art you have no right to release under it.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/navigating-creative-commons-licensing
Edited to add:
"Specify precisely what it is you are licensing.
Any given work has multiple elements; e.g., text, images, music. Make sure to clearly mark or indicate in a notice which of those are covered by the license."
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees#Considerations_for_licensors (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees#Considerations_for_licensors)
Again, no using CC By SA doesn't put everything under that license by force, that would be stupid and would limit the possible uses of the licence.
You have to specify what IS under it from your book, because obviously you might use stuff you don't own and have therefore no right to put under it.
So, writting that with the exception of XYZ that's trademark, ZYX that's copyright you, the art, whatever the rest of the book is under the license.
It would be nice if the Creative Commons site actually said this and not third party legal sites (LegalZoom.com) and a wiki there is no link to from the actual Creative Commons site.
Because if all you have is the legal documents and what's on the CC website, it provides no such explanations. Most people aren't going to seek out LegalZoom or a wiki that doesn't even come up on the first page of search results for "Creative Commons" for answers. They're going to read what the CC site says and conclude that their options won't work for them and move on to other options.
Because again... there is nothing IN the license itself or the documentation available on the CC site itself indicating how to assign it to something like a book piecemeal manner. That you are aware of a means is only via third-parties and obscure wikis (and yes, if a wiki for a subject isn't on the first page of a search on the topic, it's obscure) doesn't make it something obvious to others.
Also still not sure CC-by-SA is what I'd want anyway, as I want people to be able to sell their works made to be compatible with my works and SA implies any derivative works have to be released under CC-by-SA themselves. The entire point for me is for the license to serve the same purpose that the OGL1 did for WotC back in the day... allow third parties to make money for themselves as they encourage sales of my core books.
I'll admit that part of it could just be my mindset. I design bespoke game systems for every campaign I run. I don't just grab a "generic system" and try to hammer it into a functional game unless the assumed genre is already very close.
A general purpose public license feels like a "generic system" to me. Like it's built to cover broad areas, but might not actually cover something important to a more specific product.
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.
I get that you love and adore the Creative Commons. It does not make it the ubiquitous best answer to all licensing matters. Sometimes a genuine bespoke (or at least industry tailored) license will better address the specific interests of two parties or an industry better.
I'm not automatically signing onto ORC. I'll wait to see all its terms and conditions. But none of the CC licenses felt right to me on their own and that's important to me as a content creator... to be 100% comfortable with any license agreement I decide to use.
Dude, it's the analisis of a lawyer and the Creative Commons Wiki, hosted on their own fucking website, it doesn't get more official than that, but whatever, you do you boo.
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.