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

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

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

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.