Quote from: RPGPundit;579784Well, I have to admit that his negative-nancying on a 3.4 million dollar success story is pretty funny.

RPGPundit

This made me giggle.  I've been talking up Reaper success for three weeks.  And I certainly didn't say anything negative about them on your blog.  They hit an unqualified home-run!

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;580756While I may expound later on advantages (and drawbacks)  of the PI clause, I think a major strength of the OGL goes beyond the utility of the license, and into what was released under it. Namely, D&D (or rather, its major constituent rules and metasetting elements.)

If the Creative Commons had been around in 1999 instead of two years later and was used for D&D, do you think all those OGL games would not have been created?

Quote from: StormBringer;580958If the Creative Commons had been around in 1999 instead of two years later and was used for D&D, do you think all those OGL games would not have been created?

That's one of those "what if" scenarios in which it's tricky to ignore the context of the time. At the time the OGL was introduced, using share-alike and copyleft type provisions outside of software was a very new idea and people were actively afraid of it; companies avoided it on the premise that their precious content would be stolen and resold for cheaper; the PI provision may have provided comfort for some companies that would have balked at the idea of opening a whole book as share-alike under CC.

Further, electronic products were in their infancy. The OGL is more tuned to piecemeal sharing. Some of the bigger companies could do basically like wizards did and create different documents to be shared and kept under lock and key. But some of the smaller companies wouldn't have the editorial staff and motivation to create a separate "reference document" that they would have to do under CC if they wanted to only release pieces of their work, so I think the upshot is they a much smaller set of them would have shared their material.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;581155That's one of those "what if" scenarios in which it's tricky to ignore the context of the time. At the time the OGL was introduced, using share-alike and copyleft type provisions outside of software was a very new idea and people were actively afraid of it; companies avoided it on the premise that their precious content would be stolen and resold for cheaper; the PI provision may have provided comfort for some companies that would have balked at the idea of opening a whole book as share-alike under CC.

Further, electronic products were in their infancy. The OGL is more tuned to piecemeal sharing. Some of the bigger companies could do basically like wizards did and create different documents to be shared and kept under lock and key. But some of the smaller companies wouldn't have the editorial staff and motivation to create a separate "reference document" that they would have to do under CC if they wanted to only release pieces of their work, so I think the upshot is they a much smaller set of them would have shared their material.

Much thoughtful ideas here, I will have to ponder them a bit.  I have a feeling you are correct with this, especially the first paragraph.

I do want to take one minor exception, though:
"...the smaller companies wouldn't have the editorial staff and motivation  to create a separate 'reference document' that they would have to do  under CC if they wanted to only release pieces of their work..."
The CC covers the entire work, and does not necessarily require the original authour to present it in a form that is easy to re-mix or re-use.  I can put out a print only copy of some book or another under a CC license without an accompanying pdf or etext.  It's kind of a dickish move within the culture, but nothing really prevents it.  Secondly, I think the 'reference document' was wholly an OGL invention in the RPG sphere.  It's a great idea, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't really 'required' as part of the OGL, nor would it be for the CC.

Back in 2000, desktop publishing was still in its infancy, so piecing out sections certainly would have been less than simple.  These days, I don't think it would be as much of a problem, although it would require some degree of additional effort depending on what the authours wanted to have as 'publicly' accessible.

Quote from: StormBringer;580559It's no secret that I am an advocate for Creative Commons in general, and for RPGs specifically.  With the somewhat complicated Product Identity clause in the OGL and the overall 'legalese' of the document, what are the specifics of the OGL that make it better, in your view?

It reflects the dual nature of RPGs, crunch and fluff. Or more seriously rule mechanics and background setting.

A lot of companies wouldn't have an issue using share alike rule mechanics. They would have issues shareing their background materials. The OGL reflects that ditchnomy in roleplaying games which makes it useful to the hobby and industry.

Quote from: StormBringer;580559It's no secret that I am an advocate for Creative Commons in general, and for RPGs specifically.  With the somewhat complicated Product Identity clause in the OGL and the overall 'legalese' of the document, what are the specifics of the OGL that make it better, in your view?

The Creative Commons licenses have 3 problems:

1: There are too many of them and they're poorly differentiated.  It had to be assumed that people would take the most liberal possible assumption about the rights conveyed (just look at what happened in practice despite having one very clear license - the number of folks who "forgot" things or "didnt understand" certain things was legion for the first couple of years).  Without question those who expected to ask forgiveness not permission would have "misunderstood" and used the CC license option with no restrictions.

2:  None of the CC licenses enable works to have mixed rights.  The whole work is either in or out of a CC licesence.  This would have made it virtually impossible to use a CC license to make a product mixed with Open Game Content with an IP licesened from a 3rd party.

3:  The CC licenses that we would have used -  CC BY-CA is insanely complex.  

CC BY-CA

There was rampant suspiscion that the OGL was a plan to sneakily "steal" everyone's material and end up with WOTC owning it all.  That was one of the milder conspiracy theories.  The more complex the license the more fodder for the conspiracy.

A big point of the simplicity of the OGL was to make it as transparent as possible so that the conspiracy would have trouble gaining ground.  Other than a few people/companies who tried to AstroTurf the conspiracies once the license was finalized, most of the conspiracy promoters gave up quickly, which I attribute in part to its small size and relatively simple wording.

I just don't feel that any CC license would have been as successful as the OGL.  They're simply not the right tools for the job.

Quote from: RSDancey;581317The Creative Commons licenses have 3 problems:

1: There are too many of them and they're poorly differentiated.  It had to be assumed that people would take the most liberal possible assumption about the rights conveyed (just look at what happened in practice despite having one very clear license - the number of folks who "forgot" things or "didnt understand" certain things was legion for the first couple of years).  Without question those who expected to ask forgiveness not permission would have "misunderstood" and used the CC license option with no restrictions.

Nonsense.  There are six of them, and you only need to worry about the one that applies to your work.  And doesn't the number of people who "didn't understand" seem to indicate it wasn't as clear as assumed?  A certain percent were undoubtedly abusing the terms, but I am sure that number isn't 100%

Quote2:  None of the CC licenses enable works to have mixed rights.  The whole work is either in or out of a CC licesence.  This would have made it virtually impossible to use a CC license to make a product mixed with Open Game Content with an IP licesened from a 3rd party.

Preposterous.
BY-NC-ND
Is virtually the same thing as copyright by itself, except it allows unlimited or 'viral' distribution of the work.

But CC licenses don't enable mixed rights because they are built on "mixed" rights":
"CC licenses are copyright licenses, and depend on the existence of  copyright to work. CC licenses are legal tools that creators and other  rightsholders can use to offer certain usage rights to the public, while  reserving other rights."

"Creative Commons licenses apply to works that are protected by copyright."
(In other words, the work has to be copyright, or copyrightable, before you can apply a CC license.)

Further, nothing prevents making certain sections distributable under the CC and leaving the rest copyright.  Labyrinth Lord has a no-art pdf version that would be well served by a CC license, possibly BY-NC-ND (free marketing) or BY-NC-SA (free supplements).  They are fully within their rights to then reserve the art in the commercial version as copyright exclusively.  The text could be protected with the BY-NC-ND to avoid confusion with the copyrighted text, or if Goblinoid simply didn't want alterations to their game.

Mixing within the same product is not an issue:

"Creative Commons recommends that licensors who wish to mark works with  trademarks or other branding materials give notice to licensors  expressly disclaiming application of the license to those elements of  the work."

But that is just one's own work.  If you want to include 3rd party material:

"All Creative Commons licenses allow the original work to be included in  collections such as anthologies, encyclopedias and broadcasts."
If the particular work included the SA provision, including a re-mix or alteration of the work in another 'collection of rules' would be permissible.

Quote3:  The CC licenses that we would have used -  CC BY-CA is insanely complex.  

I assume you mean BY-SA.  This is how 'insanely complex' the 3.0 version is:

QuoteYou are free:

to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to Remix — to adapt the work
to make commercial use of the work

Under the following conditions:

    Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

    Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

Even the legal portion is not signficantly longer than the OGL.  There are 15 sections in the OGL, whereas the CC BY-SA has 8.

QuoteThere was rampant suspiscion that the OGL was a plan to sneakily "steal" everyone's material and end up with WOTC owning it all.  That was one of the milder conspiracy theories.  The more complex the license the more fodder for the conspiracy.

And the CC licenses, built on existing copyright law, are remarkably simple to understand and execute.  No one thinks a CC implementing artist is going to try to steal all the derivative works, and to my knowledge, no one ever has.

QuoteA big point of the simplicity of the OGL was to make it as transparent as possible so that the conspiracy would have trouble gaining ground.  Other than a few people/companies who tried to AstroTurf the conspiracies once the license was finalized, most of the conspiracy promoters gave up quickly, which I attribute in part to its small size and relatively simple wording.

But are conspiracy theorists really a major impetus behind the OGL or its use?

QuoteI just don't feel that any CC license would have been as successful as the OGL.  They're simply not the right tools for the job.

It appears your understanding of CC licenses is a bit outdated.  Place all the Product Identity in a copyright notice, place BY-SA notices on the rest of the work, and how is that different than what the OGL offers?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;580919The OGL just gave all the fragments the D&D that each of them wanted.

The OSR and alt.D&D options were in full swing before D&D4e came on the scene, though I agree that 4e's lacklustre commerical success has helped fragment the D&D franchise.

Quote from: Skywalker;581379The OSR and alt.D&D options were in full swing before D&D4e came on the scene, though I agree that 4e's lacklustre commerical success has helped fragment the D&D franchise.

The "lackluster success" (also known as "failure") of 4e is a consequence though, or a symptom, if you will, not a cause. The cause of the failure of 4e is that 4e was designed as a completely different game than what preceeded it, and drove a wedge at the heart of the fandom the game enjoyed previously, sending disgrunted fans look elsewhere for their D&D fix, which they found in various spin-off offerings (retroclones 1st gen, retro-games 2nd gen, Pathfinder RPG, etc.).

Quote from: Benoist;581381The "lackluster success" (also known as "failure") of 4e is a consequence though, or a symptom, if you will, not a cause. The cause of the failure of 4e is that 4e was designed as a completely different game than what preceeded it, and drove a wedge at the heart of the fandom the game enjoyed previously, sending disgrunted fans look elsewhere for their D&D fix, which they found in various spin-off offerings (retroclones 1st gen, retro-games 2nd gen, Pathfinder RPG, etc.).

Yep. I agree thats its a consequence and not a cause (even if I could quibble about the wording of the other stuff .

Quote from: Benoist;581381The "lackluster success" (also known as "failure") of 4e is a consequence though, or a symptom, if you will, not a cause. The cause of the failure of 4e is that 4e was designed as a completely different game than what preceeded it, and drove a wedge at the heart of the fandom the game enjoyed previously, sending disgrunted fans look elsewhere for their D&D fix, which they found in various spin-off offerings (retroclones 1st gen, retro-games 2nd gen, Pathfinder RPG, etc.).

Every new edition of d&d has done that.

The clever aspect of 5e is the claim that it'll be an edition that'll please fans of all editions of d&d.

I'll quite happily predict that sales will eclipse 4e based on that claim alone - whether or not it delivers.

Quote from: One Horse Town;581389Every new edition of d&d has done that.

.

Nah.  Basic, B/X, BECMI were all largely compatible.  Same with AD&D1 and 2e.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;581392Nah.  Basic, B/X, BECMI were all largely compatible.  Same with AD&D1 and 2e.

Nah. People still prefer one over another.

Quote from: One Horse Town;581393Nah. People still prefer one over another.

I prefer 1e with 2e elements (THAC0, priest spheres, thief progression).  And so do most people I game with.  Where does that put us?  It certainly isn't nearly as big of a divide as TSR D&D and 3e, or 3e and 4e.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;581394Where does that put us?  

On the naughty step.