TheRPGSite

So, if there's anyone interested in using it it's now available.

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sico

Yawn.  ::)

It looks to be ok as a quasi-Creative Commons style license.  I'm glad they didn't put some form of morality clause.  The biggest thing is that it forces users to declare the source of the game mechanics used.  It seems to be a perfectly workable alternative to the OGL1.0a.   

The funny thing is that game mechanics aren't controllable IP.  The only real protection here is for the use of a written SRD released under the ORC without risk of plagiarism or copyright violations in the future.  If you clone the rules, you don't have to worry about that anyway.  If I write an SRD that I want to share, I'll just put it out as Creative Commons an relinquish all control.

Quote from: BadApple on July 07, 2023, 05:10:21 AM
It looks to be ok as a quasi-Creative Commons style license.  I'm glad they didn't put some form of morality clause.  The biggest thing is that it forces users to declare the source of the game mechanics used.  It seems to be a perfectly workable alternative to the OGL1.0a.

I don't really have a problem with this. Hypothetical: if I used Pundit's Invisible College as a basis for my own RPG under ORC, if nothing else it would at least be polite to credit the man.

QuoteThe funny thing is that game mechanics aren't controllable IP.  The only real protection here is for the use of a written SRD released under the ORC without risk of plagiarism or copyright violations in the future.  If you clone the rules, you don't have to worry about that anyway.  If I write an SRD that I want to share, I'll just put it out as Creative Commons an relinquish all control.

Who wants to fight that out in court though? Might as well head off the issue before it becomes one.

As you noted, the lack of a bullshit morality clause is a good sign.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 07, 2023, 08:05:49 AM
Who wants to fight that out in court though? Might as well head off the issue before it becomes one.

Fortunately, for any game developer or aspiring game developer, the case has already been tried so there's solid case law.  Game mechanics cannot be patented.  Licenses like this are strange to me like a license to breathe.  "Wait, does that mean without this someone can take away my ability to breathe?"  While I'm ok with the restriction I see in this license, signing on to this license gives you no extra rights and is more restrictive that what you can already do legally while only giving you the scant protection of using SRDs as written.

Oddly, I don't think it's as ironclad a protection that it's trying to be.  Working legal theory today can be swept away by an unrelated case that up ends how we see liability on IP ownership.  The fiasco over the OGL 1.0a shows just how the the modern thoughts can be intentionally misinterpreted later.  I think the OSR has it completely right, clone and move on.  If an author wants to allow his system to be used openly, clearly state that in the document and surrender it to the public domain.   

Baizuo is trying to get the football back.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on July 07, 2023, 10:56:46 AM
Baizuo is trying to get the football back.

To be fair it looks like WotC's about to fumble it so they're timing's good.

One ORC to rule them all.

Quote from: Omega on July 07, 2023, 08:03:45 PM
One ORC to rule them all.

Have you read the license? Or the plain english Q&A? Obviously not or you wouldn't have written that.

"But see if you put your dick in our steel trap, we'll give you candy before it crushes your junk!"

My problem is that I don't understand how this will impact things. For example: Pinnacle Entertainment supposedly supports the ORC license. Does this mean that anyone can now use the Savage World rules, or parts thereof, as long as they give the source? I very much doubt that is the case.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on July 08, 2023, 03:06:57 AM
My problem is that I don't understand how this will impact things. For example: Pinnacle Entertainment supposedly supports the ORC license. Does this mean that anyone can now use the Savage World rules, or parts thereof, as long as they give the source? I very much doubt that is the case.

Legally you could always use the rules, just need to write them up in your own words.

No, you can't use anything NOT published under the ORC, exactly like with the OGL.

The only differences are:

It's not controlled by anyone.
It can't be revoked, ammended, etc.
It's more open than the OGL.

It sounds like the final version dropped the "no cutting and pasting" verbiage from an earlier version.

Quote from: thedungeondelver on July 08, 2023, 12:23:27 AM
"But see if you put your dick in our steel trap, we'll give you candy before it crushes your junk!"

Well, the alternative WotC wants you to choose is.....

Seems to me ORC provides some protection against threats of lawsuits. The mere threat of a Lawsuits can bankrupt a small company and in this case the threatened knows they'll be against a bigger financed group of lawyers and will likely lose anyway so the threat is nullified.

Having said that I believe ORC protects others as the ORC lawyers would be drawn into any case so simple intimidation will no longer work.

By the power of the angry black lesbian!!!

LOL. The "elite" of this hobby clowns itself non-stop.

What an exceptional waste of time and money. Not only doesn't it protect you from lawsuits, it actually opens you up to more liability. Because as the FAQ AxE says:

QuoteBy using material licensed under the ORC, you automatically agree to license out your game mechanics in your published work under the same terms.

In other words, your work can be deemed to be licensed under the ORC if your mechanics are similar enough to other mechanics licensed under the ORC even if you don't explicitly do so. And since similarity is based on mechanical 'concepts' rather than copied text (which is the only thing a copyright license can even enforce) there's a lot open to interpretation. For example Call of Cthulhu is not directly licensed under the ORC, but it uses BRP which is. So does that mean it's licensed under the ORC anyway?

Based on the wording if not intent of the license, yes, it is.

So I suspect you're going to see a lot of companies who back the license in principle without actually using it.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 09, 2023, 09:11:05 AM
What an exceptional waste of time and money. Not only doesn't it protect you from lawsuits, it actually opens you up to more liability. Because as the FAQ AxE says:

QuoteBy using material licensed under the ORC, you automatically agree to license out your game mechanics in your published work under the same terms.

In other words, your work can be deemed to be licensed under the ORC if your mechanics are similar enough to other mechanics licensed under the ORC even if you don't explicitly do so. And since similarity is based on mechanical 'concepts' rather than copied text (which is the only thing a copyright license can even enforce) there's a lot open to interpretation. For example Call of Cthulhu is not directly licensed under the ORC, but it uses BRP which is. So does that mean it's licensed under the ORC anyway?

Based on the wording if not intent of the license, yes, it is.

So I suspect you're going to see a lot of companies who back the license in principle without actually using it.

Do you understand the difference between mechanics and the whole work? Because it doesn't seem like you do.

What falls under the license is what you put under it, so if game X uses the mechanics of BRP and BRP is put under ORC then the creators of game X can't sue you over using the mechanics, furthermore, since the math can't be copyrighted or patented it's the text of the mechanics that's under the license and not anything that's not needed to make the mechanics work, so only the descriptive text needed to explain a spell but not it's name (unless you explicitly put the name under the license also).

The more I read the ORC license the less I like it because you can protect made up words, but mechanics are automatically licensed under Share Alike. This was also a fault of the OGL, and I would really like to see the logic behind mechanics not being protectable. Sure, mechanics can't be copyrighted, but their expression can be, so there's no reason you can't protect naming a mechanic a certain thing as proprietary. But all these licenses force mechanics into the open.

But the bottom line I see is that everything here could be done by releasing an SRD in either CC BY or CC BY SA. SRDs are not publisher books; they're reference documents, so SRDs don't take much effort to compile relative to the rulebooks themselves. Except that the Creative Commons route is objectively better because it gives the designer control over if they want Share Alike to be applied or not. The ORC forces Share Alike.

Quote from: Fheredin on July 09, 2023, 02:19:04 PM
The more I read the ORC license the less I like it because you can protect made up words, but mechanics are automatically licensed under Share Alike. This was also a fault of the OGL, and I would really like to see the logic behind mechanics not being protectable. Sure, mechanics can't be copyrighted, but their expression can be, so there's no reason you can't protect naming a mechanic a certain thing as proprietary. But all these licenses force mechanics into the open.

But the bottom line I see is that everything here could be done by releasing an SRD in either CC BY or CC BY SA. SRDs are not publisher books; they're reference documents, so SRDs don't take much effort to compile relative to the rulebooks themselves. Except that the Creative Commons route is objectively better because it gives the designer control over if they want Share Alike to be applied or not. The ORC forces Share Alike.

And the user of the SRD then gets into the legal quagmire of not knowing how to use it without making his whole work fall under the same license, because the CC licenses weren't thought with that option in mind.

An Open License (to be trully open) has to fulfill certain requisites, one being you not being able to close what was made open upstream.

And no one is forcing you to use the license for your own works or to copy paste the wording of works under the license.

Quote from: Fheredin on July 09, 2023, 02:19:04 PM
This was also a fault of the OGL, and I would really like to see the logic behind mechanics not being protectable. Sure, mechanics can't be copyrighted, but their expression can be, so there's no reason you can't protect naming a mechanic a certain thing as proprietary.

Words per se can't be copyright protected. They can be trade mark protected. I guess the ORC wants to stop that.

Quote from: S'mon on July 09, 2023, 03:54:07 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on July 09, 2023, 02:19:04 PM
This was also a fault of the OGL, and I would really like to see the logic behind mechanics not being protectable. Sure, mechanics can't be copyrighted, but their expression can be, so there's no reason you can't protect naming a mechanic a certain thing as proprietary.

Words per se can't be copyright protected. They can be trade mark protected. I guess the ORC wants to stop that.

Y'all are both stuck on can/can't. The ORC went with "doesn't" and "won't".

The ORC is intended to share, not protect, the mechanics. It's the whole purpose of it. The very first sentence in the AxE under "The ORC License in Plain English" says:

QuoteThe ORC License provides a way for game creators to openly share the mechanics of their game and allows for downstream users to freely use, modify, and reshare adaptations of these game mechanics.

Hypothetically, you can't copyright game mechanics.  And what has been stymieing the ability to share creative ideas?  The concern that some big bad billion dollar corporation will come in and try to do exactly that.  Here's a license that,if someone is using it, they can't ever sue anyone based on "stealing" (lol) their game mechanics.  In an ideal world, this portion of the ORC doesn't do anything.  But in this less than ideal world, it does a whole lot- it prevents anyone from using an ORC-licensed product to do that.  Which, again, WotC just made serious threats about a few months ago.

No one should be trying to copyright mechanics.  It's not even supposed to be possible.  This feature is an unalloyed good.

Quote from: Venka on July 09, 2023, 09:33:13 PM
Hypothetically, you can't copyright game mechanics.  And what has been stymieing the ability to share creative ideas?  The concern that some big bad billion dollar corporation will come in and try to do exactly that.  Here's a license that,if someone is using it, they can't ever sue anyone based on "stealing" (lol) their game mechanics.  In an ideal world, this portion of the ORC doesn't do anything.  But in this less than ideal world, it does a whole lot- it prevents anyone from using an ORC-licensed product to do that.  Which, again, WotC just made serious threats about a few months ago.

No one should be trying to copyright mechanics.  It's not even supposed to be possible.  This feature is an unalloyed good.

Perhaps I should rephrase my concern with my particular situation to make it apparent what the problem is.

My game uses a LIFO stack to organize the initiative organically, something akin to the Stack in Magic: The Gathering. To make this work well in an RPG, you have to over-tighten the action economy so that overly large stacks containing 5+ actions--the kind of stack which threatens to disorient players--can't form because there's not enough AP out on the table to form such a stack. But because it's over-tightened, it's inherently a little unpleasant to play.

That works for me because the game is somewhere between action-horror and survival-horror, depending on how the GM wants to play it, and both of those game genres like tight action economies. Don't get me wrong; I still think it's cludgy and can use some more polish, but it does at least kind of work.

You put this in the hands of a homebrewer with no game design experience and their first inclination will be to add more AP to loosen the action economy to make an action-adventure game. This may even playtest well because the playtest group may already be familiar with my game, and is therefore well equipped to handle complex stacks. You put this in front of a group who has no experience with this kind of mechanic--it isn't a common RPG initiative system--and players all around the table will drop a ton of actions on a single turn, get confused because the system expects the players at the table to remember how a stack of 7-8 actions is organized, and will immediately conclude the mechanic itself is broken when the truth is more that loosening the action economy geometrically increases the possible complexity of a stack and the players need time to learn before you do that to them.

Modifying this system requires some degree of formal game design understanding just so Chesterton's Fence doesn't explode in your face. If I release this under ORC and the game gets more than 2 followers, somebody with no understanding of game design is going to YOLO into hacking it and it will go super badly. Because, unlike D20, this mechanic actually requires you to know a thing or two for the game designer to manage it properly.

Quote from: Fheredin on July 09, 2023, 10:22:04 PM

Quote from: Venka on July 09, 2023, 09:33:13 PM
Hypothetically, you can't copyright game mechanics.  And what has been stymieing the ability to share creative ideas?  The concern that some big bad billion dollar corporation will come in and try to do exactly that.  Here's a license that,if someone is using it, they can't ever sue anyone based on "stealing" (lol) their game mechanics.  In an ideal world, this portion of the ORC doesn't do anything.  But in this less than ideal world, it does a whole lot- it prevents anyone from using an ORC-licensed product to do that.  Which, again, WotC just made serious threats about a few months ago.

No one should be trying to copyright mechanics.  It's not even supposed to be possible.  This feature is an unalloyed good.

Perhaps I should rephrase my concern with my particular situation to make it apparent what the problem is.

My game uses a LIFO stack to organize the initiative organically, something akin to the Stack in Magic: The Gathering. To make this work well in an RPG, you have to over-tighten the action economy so that overly large stacks containing 5+ actions--the kind of stack which threatens to disorient players--can't form because there's not enough AP out on the table to form such a stack. But because it's over-tightened, it's inherently a little unpleasant to play.

That works for me because the game is somewhere between action-horror and survival-horror, depending on how the GM wants to play it, and both of those game genres like tight action economies. Don't get me wrong; I still think it's cludgy and can use some more polish, but it does at least kind of work.

You put this in the hands of a homebrewer with no game design experience and their first inclination will be to add more AP to loosen the action economy to make an action-adventure game. This may even playtest well because the playtest group may already be familiar with my game, and is therefore well equipped to handle complex stacks. You put this in front of a group who has no experience with this kind of mechanic--it isn't a common RPG initiative system--and players all around the table will drop a ton of actions on a single turn, get confused because the system expects the players at the table to remember how a stack of 7-8 actions is organized, and will immediately conclude the mechanic itself is broken when the truth is more that loosening the action economy geometrically increases the possible complexity of a stack and the players need time to learn before you do that to them.

Modifying this system requires some degree of formal game design understanding just so Chesterton's Fence doesn't explode in your face. If I release this under ORC and the game gets more than 2 followers, somebody with no understanding of game design is going to YOLO into hacking it and it will go super badly. Because, unlike D20, this mechanic actually requires you to know a thing or two for the game designer to manage it properly.

It would be the same under ANY open license, even under the OGL, unless you pay for lawyers to craft you a license that you approve the applicants to use it.

But nobody is forcing you to use an open license, just publish as normal and if there's enough interest someone will take the time/work to extract the mechanics (which you can't copyright or patent) and make his own game with those and claim compatibility with yours because the law allows him to do that too.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 09, 2023, 09:11:05 AM
What an exceptional waste of time and money. Not only doesn't it protect you from lawsuits, it actually opens you up to more liability. Because as the FAQ AxE says:

QuoteBy using material licensed under the ORC, you automatically agree to license out your game mechanics in your published work under the same terms.

In other words, your work can be deemed to be licensed under the ORC if your mechanics are similar enough to other mechanics licensed under the ORC even if you don't explicitly do so. And since similarity is based on mechanical 'concepts' rather than copied text (which is the only thing a copyright license can even enforce) there's a lot open to interpretation. For example Call of Cthulhu is not directly licensed under the ORC, but it uses BRP which is. So does that mean it's licensed under the ORC anyway?

The license has three types of content Licensed Material (open content), Reserved Material (product identity) and Third Party Reserved Material (content OR mechanics licensed from a third party where the IP isn't under your control).

The license itself spells out in detail what is Licensed Material in section I.e. Which are how PC are created, gameplay elements, dice mechanics, and methods of playing the game. In short, ALL game mechanics are meant to be declared as Licensed Material and thus open content. The only way around this is to use someone else's game mechanic under a different license as Third Party Reserved Material.

This is not sneaky or an oversight it is implementing formally that game mechanics can't be copyrighted.

Also note you can't use the Third Party Reserved Material exception if you control the IP. You can't have any control either directly or indirectly over the third party IP. If you do then you have to make the content Licensed Material.

Quote from: Fheredin on July 09, 2023, 02:19:04 PM
The more I read the ORC license the less I like it because you can protect made up words, but mechanics are automatically licensed under Share Alike. This was also a fault of the OGL, and I would really like to see the logic behind mechanics not being protectable. Sure, mechanics can't be copyrighted, but their expression can be, so there's no reason you can't protect naming a mechanic a certain thing as proprietary. But all these licenses force mechanics into the open.

From here.
17 US Code - 102
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102

Quote(b)In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

A combat system is a procedure and thus has no copyright protection. A random table where Judges Guild decides how to weigh the various attributes of a woman does have copyright expression unless it can be shown that it is based on some type of actuarial table thus an expression of a real-world principle.

Quote from: Fheredin on July 09, 2023, 02:19:04 PM
But the bottom line I see is that everything here could be done by releasing an SRD in either CC BY or CC BY SA. SRDs are not publisher books; they're reference documents, so SRDs don't take much effort to compile relative to the rulebooks themselves. Except that the Creative Commons route is objectively better because it gives the designer control over if they want Share Alike to be applied or not. The ORC forces Share Alike.

CC-BY is silent on how how to declare that only part of a work is based on the CC-BY. This is not a problem for the author who created the SRD, but rather for the third party who uses the SRD and wants to share. The default behavior of author of mixed content with CC-BY is either not to license anything at all and just include the credit. Or release the entirety of their work also under CC-BY (or CC-BY-SA). It is rare to find a in-between case because it so unclear as to what the author is supposed to do. In contrast the OGL, and ORC spell what you have to do clearly.

In contrast, the CC-BY-SA license is far more strict, you have to make the entire work share-alike. Where ORC only requires that you do this for the game mechanics.

From here
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#if-i-create-a-collection-that-includes-a-work-offered-under-a-cc-license-which-licenses-may-i-choose-for-the-collection

QuoteBY-SA and BY-NC-SA material
In general, when remixing ShareAlike content, your adapter's license must be the same license as the license on the material you are adapting. All licenses after version 1.0 also allow you to license your contributions under a later version of the same license, and some also allow ported licenses. (See the license versions page for details.) If you wish to adapt material under BY-SA or BY-NC-SA and release your contributions under a non-CC license, you should visit the Compatibility page to see which options are allowed.

The CC folks even spell out explicitly which other licenses are compatible with CC-BY-SA.

https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses

Quote from: Fheredin on July 09, 2023, 10:22:04 PM
Modifying this system requires some degree of formal game design understanding just so Chesterton's Fence doesn't explode in your face. If I release this under ORC and the game gets more than 2 followers, somebody with no understanding of game design is going to YOLO into hacking it and it will go super badly. Because, unlike D20, this mechanic actually requires you to know a thing or two for the game designer to manage it properly.

Issues with licenses only come from those who don't want to share fully. Whatever the reason including the above.

"Super badly" is a subjective judgment on your part. Tabletop roleplaying is a leisure activity done for entertainment for fun. I point this out because until you realize there is little point in sharing or publishing as you will continually run into more folks doing it wrong. The success I had at OSR Publishing wasn't from thinking that the rest of the hobby was wrong. Rather explaining that I had specific reasons to do what I was doing. Using an older edition of D&D as my foundation, yet adding a skill system on top of it. New classes and so on. Explaining the advantages (and challenges) of sandbox campaigns and so on.

I didn't keep these reasons mysterious, I blogged/post about them, and I talked about them in podcasts. I touch on these reasons tersely in my actual books and explain why.

My recommendation is that you come up with a terse way of explaining what you know about manipulating your mechanics and include it whatever you share or publish. As opposed to just trying to control what others do with your mechanic.

Finally, as a procedure, your mechanic can't be copyrighted anyway as I explained in an earlier post see 17 USC - 102. Any attempt at trying to control its use through copyright or license is a fig leaf.

Quote from: Fheredin on July 09, 2023, 10:22:04 PM
If I release this under ORC and the game gets more than 2 followers, somebody with no understanding of game design is going to YOLO into hacking it and it will go super badly. Because, unlike D20, this mechanic actually requires you to know a thing or two for the game designer to manage it properly.

What does the ORC have to do with this?  If you release this game without any license, and someone immediately publishes a book using exactly your mechanics but with novice mistakes added in, you're in the same situation as you would be with the ORC.  Except, if you were a really rich company, you'd be able to threaten that poor schmuck with a lawsuit- one which you wouldn't be able to win, if he fought back with the aide of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, but one which he might simply cease and desist to avoid.  Is that better?  Why is that better?

Is it possible to put a non-WOTC OGL SRD (like the Open D6 SRD) under the new ORC license? Not rewriting it, just a lift and shift.

Quote from: Aglondir on July 10, 2023, 10:06:52 PM
Is it possible to put a non-WOTC OGL SRD (like the Open D6 SRD) under the new ORC license? Not rewriting it, just a lift and shift.

If we are talking about someone else other than the IP Holder like you then the answer is no. The content is still under copyright it just the IP holder gave you permission to use it under the conditions of the OGL. The only person who can change those permissions is the IP owner.

You can use it with ORC content but it will be considered Third Party Reserved Material. Any completely new mechanics you create would have to be licensed under ORC.

For example supposed everything about Adventure in Middle Earth was in a OGL SRD except for the Journey system. So you make a new RPG based on AiME and decide to incorporate some ORC content. As part of that you write a whole new subsystem to handle journeys.

Any Licensed Material from another Orc licensed IP would have to be also declared as Licensed Material free to anybody to reuse.
Any Licensed Material from AiME would remain open content under the OGL as Third Party Reserved Material. Conversely the rest of the work including the the ORC Licensed Content would be declared as Product Identity.  But... other still would be able to use it under the OGL because ORC counts as a separate license allowing other to use the IP.
Finally, any new mechanics like the Journey system would have to be declared Licensed Material.  Because as the owner of the IP ORC requires that you do that for mechanics.

The only thing you will be able to keep as Reserved Content is stuff like the history of your setting, NPC descriptions and so on.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 08, 2023, 11:48:30 AM

Quote from: Rhymer88 on July 08, 2023, 03:06:57 AM
My problem is that I don't understand how this will impact things. For example: Pinnacle Entertainment supposedly supports the ORC license. Does this mean that anyone can now use the Savage World rules, or parts thereof, as long as they give the source? I very much doubt that is the case.

Legally you could always use the rules, just need to write them up in your own words.

No, you can't use anything NOT published under the ORC, exactly like with the OGL.

The only differences are:

It's not controlled by anyone.
It can't be revoked, ammended, etc.
It's more open than the OGL.

Exactly. However, I don't think it will be applied very broadly in practice, so I rather doubt it will have much impact on the rpg industry.

Frankly, I think the burn from the OGL debacle and WotC's course in general are probably going to cool open license use by third parties.

Not that people won't release their rules under an open license; just that far fewer people are going to be inspired to use it given how much smaller the non-D&D5e segment of the market is. Might as well go after the core rules profits of your own system and that doesn't take an open license.

Quote from: estar on July 11, 2023, 12:05:14 AM

Quote from: Aglondir on July 10, 2023, 10:06:52 PM
Is it possible to put a non-WOTC OGL SRD (like the Open D6 SRD) under the new ORC license? Not rewriting it, just a lift and shift.

If we are talking about someone else other than the IP Holder like you then the answer is no. The content is still under copyright it just the IP holder gave you permission to use it under the conditions of the OGL. The only person who can change those permissions is the IP owner.

You can use it with ORC content but it will be considered Third Party Reserved Material. Any completely new mechanics you create would have to be licensed under ORC.

For example supposed everything about Adventure in Middle Earth was in a OGL SRD except for the Journey system. So you make a new RPG based on AiME and decide to incorporate some ORC content. As part of that you write a whole new subsystem to handle journeys.

Any Licensed Material from another Orc licensed IP would have to be also declared as Licensed Material free to anybody to reuse.
Any Licensed Material from AiME would remain open content under the OGL as Third Party Reserved Material. Conversely the rest of the work including the the ORC Licensed Content would be declared as Product Identity.  But... other still would be able to use it under the OGL because ORC counts as a separate license allowing other to use the IP.
Finally, any new mechanics like the Journey system would have to be declared Licensed Material.  Because as the owner of the IP ORC requires that you do that for mechanics.

The only thing you will be able to keep as Reserved Content is stuff like the history of your setting, NPC descriptions and so on.

Let's say the owner published a book with the rules only and he only said he was making it open content but attached NO license.

Then what? is it CC0?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 11, 2023, 12:19:45 PM
Let's say the owner published a book with the rules only and he only said he was making it open content but attached NO license.

Then what? is it CC0?

Well depending on the context of the rest of the conversation it sounds like he making a declaration that it is in the public domain.

But it is nuanced enough even in the US that Wikipedia made an article about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain

Quote from: estar on July 11, 2023, 01:04:09 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 11, 2023, 12:19:45 PM
Let's say the owner published a book with the rules only and he only said he was making it open content but attached NO license.

Then what? is it CC0?

Well depending on the context of the rest of the conversation it sounds like he making a declaration that it is in the public domain.

But it is nuanced enough even in the US that Wikipedia made an article about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain

Thanks for the answer, let's see if I translated it correctly and if it helps in any way:

Quote
Hello everyone.
As many people know, I don't have Orkut and I don't participate in lists and forums. It is a personal choice, I have the right to privacy. Likewise, this message will be (was?) posted by comrade Doutor Careca.

I am hearing that there is some public acclaim (?!) for 3D&T to be considered Open License. I also heard that a certain ex-editor alleges that he would be prohibited from the presence of the game in Dragão Brasil.

Lie.

It is true that we, the authors of Tormenta, do not accept his presence in DB after our departure from the editor. Reason: Tormenta now belongs to Editora Jambô. That, unlike the old publisher, has always honored his contractual commitments and has been a perfect home for Tormenta D20.

But no another publisher publishes 3D&T. So, there was (and there still isn't) any reason to prohibit his presence in the current DB.

It is true (I have said this before, and I repeat) that Editora Talismã continues to market 3D&T  products, without authorization and without 3D&T copyrights. But this is a legal matter to be resolved between us and the company.

I have never prohibited anyone from publishing or working with 3D&T. I didn't invent this game to be rich. I invented it so more people would play RPGs. Prohibiting it from being used would be a absurd.

If 3D&T was removed from the DB pages, it was not at my request. It was by pure personal decision of his ex-editor – who, moreover, never showed any proof of such a "prohibition". No one will ever be able to point in any interview, forum or e-mail message, any statement by me in that sense.

Regarding the release as Open Game, I sometimes see fans messages asking that 3D&T be Open License. I never understood the reason: there will always be net-books, there will always be non-official adaptations on the Internet. I have never complained about it.

Turning 3D&T into an Open License would only change one thing: other authors and companies could publish and sell 3D&T books without copyright payments to their author. Now, THIS IS ALREADY happening, Talismã itself sells Manuals 3D&T without any payment to the author. I have nothing to gain by banning 3D&T from being sold, and nothing to lose by freeing it.

Therefore...

I, Marcelo Cassaro, author of the game 3D&T • Defensores de Tóquio 3rd Edition, authorize the release of its rules (but no characters and settings) as Open Game content.

Done. Is this better?

Hugs to everyone.

Cassaro

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 11, 2023, 02:20:03 PM

Quote from: estar on July 11, 2023, 01:04:09 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 11, 2023, 12:19:45 PM
Let's say the owner published a book with the rules only and he only said he was making it open content but attached NO license.

Then what? is it CC0?

Well depending on the context of the rest of the conversation it sounds like he making a declaration that it is in the public domain.

But it is nuanced enough even in the US that Wikipedia made an article about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain

Thanks for the answer, let's see if I translated it correctly and if it helps in any way:

Quote
I, Marcelo Cassaro, author of the game 3D&T • Defensores de Tóquio 3rd Edition, authorize the release of its rules (but no characters and settings) as Open Game content.

Done. Is this better?

I don't think this by itself is legally binding. He isn't putting it in public domain.

To release the rules in a given open license, he needs to put out a written document with exactly the license used (including version) and exactly what text is being made open content under that license.

Quote from: jhkim on July 11, 2023, 02:48:26 PM
To release the rules in a given open license, he needs to put out a written document with exactly the license used (including version) and exactly what text is being made open content under that license.

His statement is a written document and it is written formally as well despite being terse. But I do agree it would be clearer if he took all that he considers open and said that particular text he authored is now open-content free to use.

Quote from: estar on July 11, 2023, 03:58:00 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 11, 2023, 02:48:26 PM
To release the rules in a given open license, he needs to put out a written document with exactly the license used (including version) and exactly what text is being made open content under that license.

His statement is a written document and it is written formally as well despite being terse. But I do agree it would be clearer if he took all that he considers open and said that particular text he authored is now open-content free to use.

It's in the appendice of the rule's book.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 11, 2023, 02:20:03 PM
I, Marcelo Cassaro, author of the game 3D&T • Defensores de Tóquio 3rd Edition, authorize the release of its rules (but no characters and settings) as Open Game content.

So it definitely not a declaration of public domain. But he is definitely giving permission to use the rules. However I recommend writing to him to clarify three things.

Does he want to be credited. i.e. CC-BY
Is it OK to sell it i.e. making sure it is not CC-NC
And is it OK for us to license your derivative content to others.

If yes to the last two then you are good to go with release what you want under ORC. The first question is just about being courteous.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 11, 2023, 04:00:50 PM
It's in the appendice of the rule's book.

I still would ask those three questions if you can. But from what I was told by my attorney in the cases of ambiguity the courts favor the licensee (the person using the content), not the licensor (the person who own the IP).

Quote from: estar on July 11, 2023, 04:03:07 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 11, 2023, 02:20:03 PM
I, Marcelo Cassaro, author of the game 3D&T • Defensores de Tóquio 3rd Edition, authorize the release of its rules (but no characters and settings) as Open Game content.

So it definitely not a declaration of public domain. But he is definitely giving permission to use the rules. However I recommend writing to him to clarify three things.

Does he want to be credited. i.e. CC-BY
Is it OK to sell it i.e. making sure it is not CC-NC
And is it OK for us to license your derivative content to others.

If yes to the last two then you are good to go with release what you want under ORC. The first question is just about being courteous.

Good luck contacting him, he's not on social media, I don't know his email (if he has one).

Quote from: estar on July 11, 2023, 04:04:55 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 11, 2023, 04:00:50 PM
It's in the appendice of the rule's book.

I still would ask those three questions if you can. But from what I was told by my attorney in the cases of ambiguity the courts favor the licensee (the person using the content), not the licensor (the person who own the IP).

So? Can I make a translation and put it up for sale? Because I'm certain that as a free netbook he wouldn't mind, especially since his game is already being sold by a different publisher WITHOUT paying him shit.

Or would I need to re-write the rules text to be safe?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 11, 2023, 04:10:03 PM

So? Can I make a translation and put it up for sale? Because I'm certain that as a free netbook he wouldn't mind, especially since his game is already being sold by a different publisher WITHOUT paying him shit.

I can't give legal advice but I have to say as a free netbook I would say the worse that can happen is that you have to take down the work. In the US you can't recover damages unless the work has been registered. Just make sure he is probably credited with a URL back to the original.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 11, 2023, 04:10:03 PM
Or would I need to re-write the rules text to be safe?

Isn't translating the text pretty rewriting the rules? It not going to be a one to one word substitution.

Quote from: estar on July 11, 2023, 04:15:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 11, 2023, 04:10:03 PM

So? Can I make a translation and put it up for sale? Because I'm certain that as a free netbook he wouldn't mind, especially since his game is already being sold by a different publisher WITHOUT paying him shit.

I can't give legal advice but I have to say as a free netbook I would say the worse that can happen is that you have to take down the work. In the US you can't recover damages unless the work has been registered. Just make sure he is probably credited with a URL back to the original.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 11, 2023, 04:10:03 PM
Or would I need to re-write the rules text to be safe?

Isn't translating the text pretty rewriting the rules? It not going to be a one to one word substitution.

Drat, so no dice.

No, I meant re-writting the rules text as to make it as different as possible from the original while retaining the mechanics.

My one random thought about this, was at first I thought Paizo was going to make Orcs evil again, because people talking about ORC and whatnot, but then I remembered who Paizo are and became sad.   Oh well.

Another issue is games licensed under ORC are less likely to see video game adaptations, especially on console, as it's essentially a patent sharing license, and all implementation details would be contaminated by it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 09, 2023, 12:02:53 PM
Do you understand the difference between mechanics and the whole work? Because it doesn't seem like you do.

Oh I very much do.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 09, 2023, 12:02:53 PM
What falls under the license is what you put under it,

Might want to reread and consult a lawyer, as I can assure you it's based on what licenses the content you use is under.

Quote from: estar on July 10, 2023, 08:54:54 AM
CC-BY is silent on how how to declare that only part of a work is based on the CC-BY.

It's easy, and anthologies do it all the time.

Quote from: estar on July 10, 2023, 08:54:54 AM
In contrast, the CC-BY-SA license is far more strict, you have to make the entire work share-alike. Where ORC only requires that you do this for the game mechanics.

The ORC requires you to share those mechanics regardless of how much you modify them.

The CC-BY-SA does not apply to subsequent works which would otherwise be considered transformative enough to not violate Copyright.

Quote from: estar on July 11, 2023, 12:05:14 AM
You can use it with ORC content but it will be considered Third Party Reserved Material. Any completely new mechanics you create would have to be licensed under ORC.

Mechanics aren't considered Reserved Material, Third Party or otherwise.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 13, 2023, 02:34:03 AM
Another issue is games licensed under ORC are less likely to see video game adaptations, especially on console, as it's essentially a patent sharing license, and all implementation details would be contaminated by it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 09, 2023, 12:02:53 PM
Do you understand the difference between mechanics and the whole work? Because it doesn't seem like you do.

Oh I very much do.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 09, 2023, 12:02:53 PM
What falls under the license is what you put under it,

Might want to reread and consult a lawyer, as I can assure you it's based on what licenses the content you use is under.

Quote from: estar on July 10, 2023, 08:54:54 AM
CC-BY is silent on how how to declare that only part of a work is based on the CC-BY.

It's easy, and anthologies do it all the time.

Quote from: estar on July 10, 2023, 08:54:54 AM
In contrast, the CC-BY-SA license is far more strict, you have to make the entire work share-alike. Where ORC only requires that you do this for the game mechanics.

The ORC requires you to share those mechanics regardless of how much you modify them.

The CC-BY-SA does not apply to subsequent works which would otherwise be considered transformative enough to not violate Copyright.

Quote from: estar on July 11, 2023, 12:05:14 AM
You can use it with ORC content but it will be considered Third Party Reserved Material. Any completely new mechanics you create would have to be licensed under ORC.

Mechanics aren't considered Reserved Material, Third Party or otherwise.

Tell me you don't understand reserved material vs shared material without telling me you're an idiot.

No, if MY game is an original work, and I choose to put the mechanics or whatever under the ORC it's about what I put under it. Now, downstream users are required to respect the license, and that's a good thing, else you risk ending like BSD -> Darwin -> MacOS (or whatever Crapple's OS is called now) where BSED is under an open license that allows turning it into closed code, so Crapple got it, used the community to perfect it (Darwin) and when it reached a certain point took it, closed it and continued development.

No, CC BY SA forces you to Share Alike.

Yep, mechanicas arent reserved material, because you can't copyright or trademark them, are you really this stupid?

You guys have convinced me; I'm going traditional copyright.

Fair use for random third parties and free individual licenses for anyone interested in creating superversive material using the setting (including free use of logos, images, trade dress and setting material) sounds good to me.

I'm not in it for the money, but I am very much against having wokists and Gnostics (but I largely repeat myself) making Fuckabearistan using it.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 13, 2023, 02:34:03 AM
Another issue is games licensed under ORC are less likely to see video game adaptations, especially on console, as it's essentially a patent sharing license, and all implementation details would be contaminated by it.

Patents have nothing to do with video game adaptation and the issue is no different than trying to use open content from the OGL in a video game.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 13, 2023, 02:34:03 AM

Quote from: estar on July 10, 2023, 08:54:54 AM
CC-BY is silent on how how to declare that only part of a work is based on the CC-BY.

It's easy, and anthologies do it all the time.

Then it should be not a problem to point out the provisions in the CC-BY license that clearly states how to open only part of your work as CC-BY.
You can find the text at this link.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.txt

As I stated before the CC license is focused on a work as a whole. CC-BY is easy to reuse in compilations because the only requirement is a credit. In reverse, it is not hard for the author to clearly say that only say these sections are licensed under CC-BY and be done with it. My point is that there is no standard way for folks to share only part of the work under CC-BY. In contrast, ORC and the OGL have a standard way of designating what parts of the products are open content.

Finally the CC-BY-SA license clearly states that any use of CC-BY-SA means the entire work also has to be licensed under CC-BY-SA.

From Section 3.b.1

QuoteThe Adapter's License You apply must be a Creative Commons license with the same License Elements, this version or later, or a BY-SA Compatible License.

From Section 1.A which defines adapted material.

Quotea. Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered,  arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image.

And as I quoted in a earlier post, the CC FAQ makes is very clear that the use of CC-BY-SA in a work whether it is a compilation or not means the entire work has to be licensed under CC-BY-SA.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 13, 2023, 02:34:03 AM

Quote from: estar on July 10, 2023, 08:54:54 AM
In contrast, the CC-BY-SA license is far more strict, you have to make the entire work share-alike. Where ORC only requires that you do this for the game mechanics.

The ORC requires you to share those mechanics regardless of how much you modify them.

So does CC-BY-SA. 

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 13, 2023, 02:34:03 AM
The CC-BY-SA does not apply to subsequent works which would otherwise be considered transformative enough to not violate Copyright.

Nice try moving the goalposts. But that situation is about an original work by the author. This discussion what it takes to reuse material. Reworking it to the point where is not considered a derivative work is applicable to material licensed under ORC as well any other license. The author would be able to license it out under whatever copyright terms they see fit.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 13, 2023, 02:34:03 AM

Quote from: estar on July 11, 2023, 12:05:14 AM
You can use it with ORC content but it will be considered Third Party Reserved Material. Any completely new mechanics you create would have to be licensed under ORC.

Mechanics aren't considered Reserved Material, Third Party or otherwise.

You haven't read the text of the ORC license then.

QuoteSection I.k
Third Party Reserved Material means all intellectual property rights that are not or have not
been licensed under the ORC License and that are neither owned nor controlled by Licensor or
You or any person or entity that directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under
common control with You or Licensor.

Further reinforced by Section I.e.iv. I highlighted the relevant wording in bold.

QuoteMethods and mediums by which players play the game (such as dice rolling, random
number generation, coin flipping, card drawing and play, applying modifiers to results of
chance, creating or filling in character sheets, moving and interacting with tokens or
figurines, drawing maps and illustrations, speaking, messaging, acting, pantomime, writing
notes, asking questions, and making statements).

The term Licensed Material shall in no event include Third Party Reserved Material. For the
avoidance of doubt, the term Licensed Material is intended to exclude Reserved Material except
to the limited extent a Licensor has expressly designated content that would otherwise
constitute their Reserved Material as Licensed Material pursuant to notice published under
Article III.

If you care to reply with citations from the actual licenses themselves then perhaps you can contribute to the discussion with useful information.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 13, 2023, 08:01:18 AM
Fair use for random third parties and free individual licenses for anyone interested in creating superversive material using the setting (including free use of logos, images, trade dress and setting material) sounds good to me.

Nobody is going to use your material under those terms versus creating their own. The Chris24601 of today can't be relied on to be the same CHris24601 of tomorrow. None of us can be relied on in this way, myself inculded.

This is why formal licenses are useful. Personally, I don't think they need to be as complex as some folks make it out to be but sharing works best when it is formally stated. That way everybody is clear on what going on today with the material and going into the future.

And I still state this again, all the complications we are debating only result if the author doesn't want to fully share without conditions for some reason. I don't have to sweat it with Blackmarsh because it was released as CC-BY a decade ago. If some jackass uses it then I reserve the right to make fun of them but they still have the same rights as anybody else to the material. By releasing it under CC-BY I am taking my ability away to use the copyright club on somebody just because I am having a bad day. If folks want creative freedom then then they have to support creative freedom fully and without reservation.

Quote from: estar on July 13, 2023, 01:12:26 PM
Nobody is going to use your material under those terms versus creating their own. The Chris24601 of today can't be relied on to be the same CHris24601 of tomorrow. None of us can be relied on in this way, myself inculded.

This is why formal licenses are useful. Personally, I don't think they need to be as complex as some folks make it out to be but sharing works best when it is formally stated. That way everybody is clear on what going on today with the material and going into the future.

Bold emphasis mine.  This is the exact issue we have with the Hazards-of-the-bro debacle. 

I sometimes wonder if it isn't better to just make all the suppliments you write sytem agnostic and hope that GM's are smart enough to figure out how to adapt it to their games.

Quote from: estar on July 13, 2023, 01:12:26 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 13, 2023, 08:01:18 AM
Fair use for random third parties and free individual licenses for anyone interested in creating superversive material using the setting (including free use of logos, images, trade dress and setting material) sounds good to me.

Nobody is going to use your material under those terms versus creating their own. The Chris24601 of today can't be relied on to be the same CHris24601 of tomorrow. None of us can be relied on in this way, myself inculded.

This is why formal licenses are useful. Personally, I don't think they need to be as complex as some folks make it out to be but sharing works best when it is formally stated. That way everybody is clear on what going on today with the material and going into the future.

And I still state this again, all the complications we are debating only result if the author doesn't want to fully share without conditions for some reason. I don't have to sweat it with Blackmarsh because it was released as CC-BY a decade ago. If some jackass uses it then I reserve the right to make fun of them but they still have the same rights as anybody else to the material. By releasing it under CC-BY I am taking my ability away to use the copyright club on somebody just because I am having a bad day. If folks want creative freedom then then they have to support creative freedom fully and without reservation.

Never said I wouldn't use formal licenses... just that I would not use a general open license.

Call it a Free Closed License.

Pure mechanics aren't covered anyway so if someone uses the raw system for their own material their own setting... by law they don't even need to credit me.

So the only thing worth licensing is the setting material and the part I value there is better served via individual licenses with a morality clause coupled with broad access to that setting material, logos and trade dress and few if any takers than an open license where people are free to use the material for supplements involving necro-ursine sodomy or Gnostic heresies... those people are free to use any open system they want.

And frankly, wouldn't more people developing their own systems be healthier for the gaming ecology anyway? Lord knows that I much prefer bespoke systems to yet another reskin of Basic/1/3/5e D&D.

Sure, the OGL grew the hobby as a whole, but it did so at the expense of ecosystem... which is now choked out with the gaming equivalent of Kudzu.

There have been MANY good points made in this thread and the various others about the various licenses...HOWEVER, I keep coming back to the USA's Fair Use laws and wondering WHY I would use any license EXCEPT if I want compatibility with Game ABC or if I want to write within Setting XYZ.

I just don't see any Mega-Corp having any legal standing against anyone who writes Generic Fantasy RPG #1982000. Honestly, all this energy would be better spent WRITNG and CREATING (and then MARKETING).

But what about "cease & desist" letters? Compost them. Lawyer fear tactic because they know legalese scares non-lawyers into obedience.

Of course, if your GOAL is to play inside someone else's sandbox, they you MUST play by the rules of their sandbox.

AKA, if 6e arrives AND I get a squirrel stuck up my asshole AND I just MUST write a 6e doodad book for the 6e audience, then I would have to obey the WotC license.

Quote from: estar on July 13, 2023, 01:12:26 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 13, 2023, 08:01:18 AM
Fair use for random third parties and free individual licenses for anyone interested in creating superversive material using the setting (including free use of logos, images, trade dress and setting material) sounds good to me.

Nobody is going to use your material under those terms versus creating their own. The Chris24601 of today can't be relied on to be the same CHris24601 of tomorrow. None of us can be relied on in this way, myself inculded.

This is why formal licenses are useful. Personally, I don't think they need to be as complex as some folks make it out to be but sharing works best when it is formally stated. That way everybody is clear on what going on today with the material and going into the future.

And I still state this again, all the complications we are debating only result if the author doesn't want to fully share without conditions for some reason. I don't have to sweat it with Blackmarsh because it was released as CC-BY a decade ago. If some jackass uses it then I reserve the right to make fun of them but they still have the same rights as anybody else to the material. By releasing it under CC-BY I am taking my ability away to use the copyright club on somebody just because I am having a bad day. If folks want creative freedom then then they have to support creative freedom fully and without reservation.

IMHO ORC is better than CC BY BECAUSE it allows you to take wahtever I put under it without FORCING you to release your stuff as a whole under the ORC. But it also allows me to put all of my work as open content if I so wish.

Quote from: Spinachcat on July 13, 2023, 04:44:12 PM
There have been MANY good points made in this thread and the various others about the various licenses...HOWEVER, I keep coming back to the USA's Fair Use laws and wondering WHY I would use any license EXCEPT if I want compatibility with Game ABC or if I want to write within Setting XYZ.

I just don't see any Mega-Corp having any legal standing against anyone who writes Generic Fantasy RPG #1982000. Honestly, all this energy would be better spent WRITNG and CREATING (and then MARKETING).

But what about "cease & desist" letters? Compost them. Lawyer fear tactic because they know legalese scares non-lawyers into obedience.

Of course, if your GOAL is to play inside someone else's sandbox, they you MUST play by the rules of their sandbox.

AKA, if 6e arrives AND I get a squirrel stuck up my asshole AND I just MUST write a 6e doodad book for the 6e audience, then I would have to obey the WotC license.

I hope that after the OGL fiasco and the CC-BY release that at least some company is willing to write books for 6e without getting a license other than CC-BY. As you say, Fair Use and trademark compatibility shouldn't require additional permissions to make something like an adventure module or most other supplements for use with D&D. That's what Mayfair Games tried to do back in the 1980s.

For most small-press creators, it really isn't going to matter. Realistically, there isn't going to be many other people creating based on your material, and they're probably fans who don't care about commercial rights. If it does turn out to be a hit, one can always release using an open license later.

Quote from: Spinachcat on July 13, 2023, 04:44:12 PM
There have been MANY good points made in this thread and the various others about the various licenses...HOWEVER, I keep coming back to the USA's Fair Use laws and wondering WHY I would use any license EXCEPT if I want compatibility with Game ABC or if I want to write within Setting XYZ.

Pretty much this... and why I still think standard copyright is the way to go for me. I don't give a flip about people using the rules, but the rules are already fair use. The main thing I want to protect is people coming along with distinctly adverse values writing things they claim are associated with my setting. I don't even want those people to be able indicate compatibility in anything other than fine print.

Copyright (and trademarking my system logo) and individual licenses are the only viable tool for that. If that means no one else chooses to work with it, I can live with that a lot easier than seeing "The Necro-Bear-Humper's Guide - options compatible with Ruins & Realms."

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 13, 2023, 07:16:58 PM

Quote from: Spinachcat on July 13, 2023, 04:44:12 PM
There have been MANY good points made in this thread and the various others about the various licenses...HOWEVER, I keep coming back to the USA's Fair Use laws and wondering WHY I would use any license EXCEPT if I want compatibility with Game ABC or if I want to write within Setting XYZ.

Pretty much this... and why I still think standard copyright is the way to go for me. I don't give a flip about people using the rules, but the rules are already fair use. The main thing I want to protect is people coming along with distinctly adverse values writing things they claim are associated with my setting. I don't even want those people to be able indicate compatibility in anything other than fine print.

Copyright (and trademarking my system logo) and individual licenses are the only viable tool for that. If that means no one else chooses to work with it, I can live with that a lot easier than seeing "The Necro-Bear-Humper's Guide - options compatible with Ruins & Realms."

You're in the US right?

If so I have bad news for you:

BY LAW, I can take your mechanics, create a gasme that goes against anything and everything you believe and claim compatibility with your game on the cover of mine and there's jack shit you can do about it. The only condition is I must make it in such a way as to not imply association or approval from you.

Not hart to do:

"This game isn't related in any way with Ruins & Realms or it's creator/publisher but it is fully compatible with Ruins & Realms."

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 13, 2023, 07:33:48 PM
You're in the US right?

If so I have bad news for you:

BY LAW, I can take your mechanics, create a gasme that goes against anything and everything you believe and claim compatibility with your game on the cover of mine and there's jack shit you can do about it. The only condition is I must make it in such a way as to not imply association or approval from you.

Not hart to do:

"This game isn't related in any way with Ruins & Realms or it's creator/publisher but it is fully compatible with Ruins & Realms."

Mostly agreed - but I'd note that this depends on trademark law rather than copyright, and it's potentially a grey area depending on placement and use of the trademark.

In the 1990s, Kevin Siembieda (owner of Palladium Books) did successfully shut down Wizards of the Coast by suing them for doing this in The Primal Order. At the time, WotC was a smaller start-up and they couldn't afford to deal with the legal hassle of fighting the lawsuit. So Siembieda effectively won. However, if they were willing to fight it in court, they might well have won.

Chris24601 could try to do the same thing, but it depends on the resources and dedication of who he's suing.

Quote from: jhkim on July 13, 2023, 07:42:24 PM
Mostly agreed - but I'd note that this depends on trademark law rather than copyright, and it's potentially a grey area depending on placement and use of the trademark.

Trade Dress is a big grey area when it comes to games. While nothing stops and author from making a RPG with mechanics like hit points, armor class, levels, and classes. Nor it is a problem if your RPG happens to have one or two of these mechanics that happened to be named Hit Points, Armor Class, Level, etc.

The grey area occurs when you have all of these mechanics with the exact same names in the same RPG. It is an open point whether the particular combination of mechanics and their names is a copyrightable expression. Or failing that a form of trade dress that is protectable.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 13, 2023, 07:33:48 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 13, 2023, 07:16:58 PM

Quote from: Spinachcat on July 13, 2023, 04:44:12 PM
There have been MANY good points made in this thread and the various others about the various licenses...HOWEVER, I keep coming back to the USA's Fair Use laws and wondering WHY I would use any license EXCEPT if I want compatibility with Game ABC or if I want to write within Setting XYZ.

Pretty much this... and why I still think standard copyright is the way to go for me. I don't give a flip about people using the rules, but the rules are already fair use. The main thing I want to protect is people coming along with distinctly adverse values writing things they claim are associated with my setting. I don't even want those people to be able indicate compatibility in anything other than fine print.

Copyright (and trademarking my system logo) and individual licenses are the only viable tool for that. If that means no one else chooses to work with it, I can live with that a lot easier than seeing "The Necro-Bear-Humper's Guide - options compatible with Ruins & Realms."

You're in the US right?

If so I have bad news for you:

BY LAW, I can take your mechanics, create a gasme that goes against anything and everything you believe and claim compatibility with your game on the cover of mine and there's jack shit you can do about it. The only condition is I must make it in such a way as to not imply association or approval from you.

Not hart to do:

"This game isn't related in any way with Ruins & Realms or it's creator/publisher but it is fully compatible with Ruins & Realms."

I already said that anyone can take the rules under fair use... why does everyone keep pretending I haven't said that?

And more to the point, nothing you've stated are issues with copyright would be any better by slapping an ORC license onto it... so why bother with the ORC at all?

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 14, 2023, 09:16:17 AM
And more to the point, nothing you've stated are issues with copyright would be any better by slapping an ORC license onto it... so why bother with the ORC at all?

My point is that without you putting that statement in writing "future you" can make life miserable for somebody who used your RPG to make their own stuff.

The point of ORC, and other licenses is to provide clarity. Your statement doesn't provide clarity. You may think it does because of how you currently view fair use.

For one thing, the copyright of game mechanics isn't a fair use issue. It is because in the US you can't copyright a process, idea, procedure, etc. Fair use is about when you are allowed to use other people's copyrighted material verbatim or slightly modified.

Another is that while game mechanics are not copyrighted a particular combination of game mechanics and text is. True that there are only so many way of writing roll 1d6 add 1. However, most RPG have procedures and mechanics that are more elaborate that could be explained in several ways. It is not a fair use under copyright for someone to copy the combat chapter verbatim out of your rule without your explicit permission.

So saying go ahead and use my combat chapter because it is OK because it is fair use is a nonsense statement.

In contrast saying that your combat chapter is licensed under CC-BY or ORC is much more clear and establishes clear boundaries about what you would like people to do about the material.

Given your sentiment, by far the easiest thing for you to do is to say these chapters are licensed under CC-BY and what you want your credit to say. The provides clarity to those who want to use your material. And it doesn't require to think about Licensed Material, Product Identity and the other the naunces that OGL and ORC have.

The only requirement for the user of your content is to put credit in their work. They can even license that work under different terms as long they require that your credit is preserved. And they don't have to open the work they based on your material.

The principle here is simple. If you don't care that other people use your copyrighted material then put that in  writing.  Otherwise, the default are the rights laid out in copyright law which are heavily weighted toward the author having complete control over the copying and use of their work.

You may not like it but this is the situation we are in.

Quote from: estar on July 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AM
The principle here is simple. If you don't care that other people use your copyrighted material then put that in  writing.  Otherwise, the default are the rights laid out in copyright law which are heavily weighted toward the author having complete control over the copying and use of their work.

You may not like it but this is the situation we are in.

I think you're misunderstanding me, although I think I've been pretty clear about my desires (but maybe not).

You seem to think that I should see the bolded as a negative that should persuade me to use the ORC while I'm looking the bolded section as EXACTLY WHAT I WANT in order to keep "Bear-Fuckers the RPG" (WotC deserves to be mocked forever for that... which is why until something better comes along it is my go to phrase for woke garbage) from having any links to my material beyond what they can tease out through Fair Use.

I WANT the control over who gets to use my concepts.

I WANT to be able to put in writing that "person A has a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to use my IP for your family-friend pro-Christian themed adventure or setting at no charge" and say "sorry, person B, you don't get a license because your concept for a supplement is the antithesis of everything I believe in."

Plenty of companies run just fine on releasing their material via individual licenses (which don't HAVE to require an exchange of money, its just typical) instead of open licenses.

I get that you don't particularly care who uses the results of your labors and what they might use it for so ORC or CC is the greatest thing since sliced bread for you.

I do care about that though. This discussion has solidified that what I really want is traditional copyright and the ability to control who gets written free licenses for it (and for licenses for the logos, trade dress and setting fluff along with expressions of processes to producers who support my ethos).

This is important to me is that there are a lot of elements available to PCs in my setting that are common to traditional fantasy and myth that when used as intended are fine (changelings, sapient talking animals, NPC rules for necromancers), but which could easily be perverted by the Woke into stuff just like WotC's necro-bestiality with trans-Furries fetishes.

Given I am pushing traditional heroic virtues, themes and setting elements with my system I really want to protect against The Book of Erotic Fantasy Woke 2023 Edition from being made for my system by any means other than via squeezing out something via fair use.

That probably means I get little to no third party support, but since I'm only looking for third party support that aligns with my values this isn't really a negative for me either.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 14, 2023, 04:02:48 PM
I think you're misunderstanding me, although I think I've been pretty clear about my desires (but maybe not).

You seem to think that I should see the bolded as a negative that should persuade me to use the ORC

I apologize for not being clear. I am not suggesting you us any particular license only that you write up formally whatever you decide if you decide to share.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 14, 2023, 04:02:48 PMI WANT to be able to put in writing

That what I am recommending. If you share just write the down the terms you are willing to share under. Previously post of yours sounded just like what Kevin Crawford did up until the Cities without number kickstarter. Kevin said informally numerous times that folks can riff off of his work as long as they don't copy anything directly. However never made a formal statement. Now he is. And it sound like you are doing the same. So we are good.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 13, 2023, 07:33:48 PMYou're in the US right?

Commiefornia is technically still part of the union.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 13, 2023, 07:33:48 PMBY LAW, I can take your mechanics, create a gasme that goes against anything and everything you believe and claim compatibility with your game on the cover of mine and there's jack shit you can do about it.

True, but a cartel hit might be cheaper than lawyers now. 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 13, 2023, 07:33:48 PM"This game isn't related in any way with Ruins & Realms or it's creator/publisher but it is fully compatible with Ruins & Realms."

But what license would actually protect from this?

And I'm really unsure of what value they would get out of doing so. How many woketards are really going to spend money on The Necro-Bear-Humper's Guide?

Also, let's do a thought experiment.

1) Ruins & Realms comes out. It's good and develops a following.

2) Woketard McJackass publishes The Necro-Bear-Humper's Guide on DriveThru and declares it's compatibility with Ruins & Realms and the 24601th Chris learns of this.

What happens next?

Does Chris give it attention by posting about it to his fandom? Because all publicity is good publicity.

Does the fandom of R&R really run out and buy this supplement? Remember that its already DAMN HARD to get fans to buy anything past the core book.

Other than the "mega lolz" that Woketard McJackass might have over at RPG.net or Twatter with his other dozen blue hairs, I don't see the win or ROI here.

Of course, such an "attack" on R&R might become a rallying cry for the anti-woke to give R&R their support. AKA, like the Goya buy-cott back in 2020.

Quote from: estar on July 13, 2023, 10:54:35 PMThe grey area occurs when you have all of these mechanics with the exact same names in the same RPG. It is an open point whether the particular combination of mechanics and their names is a copyrightable expression. Or failing that a form of trade dress that is protectable.

But who could even bring a gray area case in 2023 when the RPG industry as a whole has been full of gray area games for 50 years?

I don't see where WotC or Blizzard could start screaming about anything - except the MOST blatant plagiarism.

If Games Workshop didn't sue Blizzard for WarCraft or StarCraft, I can't see WotC going after any small press publisher for doing even a VERY D&D-ish game with nigh-copies of beholders, etc.

Quote from: Spinachcat on July 14, 2023, 08:39:19 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 13, 2023, 07:33:48 PMYou're in the US right?

Commiefornia is technically still part of the union.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 13, 2023, 07:33:48 PMBY LAW, I can take your mechanics, create a gasme that goes against anything and everything you believe and claim compatibility with your game on the cover of mine and there's jack shit you can do about it.

True, but a cartel hit might be cheaper than lawyers now. 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 13, 2023, 07:33:48 PM"This game isn't related in any way with Ruins & Realms or it's creator/publisher but it is fully compatible with Ruins & Realms."

But what license would actually protect from this?

And I'm really unsure of what value they would get out of doing so. How many woketards are really going to spend money on The Necro-Bear-Humper's Guide?

Also, let's do a thought experiment.

1) Ruins & Realms comes out. It's good and develops a following.

2) Woketard McJackass publishes The Necro-Bear-Humper's Guide on DriveThru and declares it's compatibility with Ruins & Realms and the 24601th Chris learns of this.

What happens next?

Does Chris give it attention by posting about it to his fandom? Because all publicity is good publicity.

Does the fandom of R&R really run out and buy this supplement? Remember that its already DAMN HARD to get fans to buy anything past the core book.

Other than the "mega lolz" that Woketard McJackass might have over at RPG.net or Twatter with his other dozen blue hairs, I don't see the win or ROI here.

Of course, such an "attack" on R&R might become a rallying cry for the anti-woke to give R&R their support. AKA, like the Goya buy-cott back in 2020.

IANAL but AFAIK there's no license that would protect anyone from Woketard McJackass doing The Necro-Bear-Humper's Guide and declaring compatibility with ANY game.

IMHO the imbecile behind Myfarog could take the CC BY 5e SRD and do an even more white supremacist game and there's nothing WotKKK can do about it, heck they couldn't do anything even without the SRD, not having an SRD only makes it more difficult to create The Necro-Bear-Humper's Guide or The Arian World Cleansing Guide.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 13, 2023, 02:44:05 AM
Tell me you don't understand reserved material vs shared material without telling me you're an idiot.

While I am flattered you permit me to live rent free in your head I'm sure there are folks who need the room more than me.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 13, 2023, 02:44:05 AMif MY game is an original work, and I choose to put the mechanics or whatever under the ORC it's about what I put under it.

Sure if it's 'original'. But if it's based on anything else...

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 13, 2023, 02:44:05 AMdownstream users are required to respect the license,

...you have to put all your mechanics under the same license.

So what determines if an RPG is 'based' on anything? The die mechanic? Similar spells? Because again ORC does not determine this by copied text.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 13, 2023, 02:44:05 AM
No, CC BY SA forces you to Share Alike.

See discussion with Estar below

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 13, 2023, 02:44:05 AM
mechanicas arent reserved material, because you can't copyright or trademark them, are you really this stupid?

No dumber than the license in question which tries to protect mechanics through copyright.

Quote from: estar on July 13, 2023, 01:02:25 PM
Patents have nothing to do with video game adaptation and the issue is no different than trying to use open content from the OGL in a video game.

From the FAQ AxE:

"If you create an electronic game based on Licensed Material, you are free to do that, but you are obligated to give back to the gaming community only the new game mechanics that you developed and incorporated in your product. We realize that for some large software product distributors, they require you to assign all rights in your code to them. This would be a violation of the ORC and you are prohibited from granting them those rights."

Quote from: estar on July 13, 2023, 01:02:25 PM
the CC FAQ makes is very clear that the use of CC-BY-SA in a work whether it is a compilation or not means the entire work has to be licensed under CC-BY-SA.

4.4 Remixing CC-Licensed Work (https://certificates.creativecommons.org/cccertedu/chapter/4-4-remixing-cc-licensed-work/):

"In contrast to an adaptation or remix of others' work, a collection involves the assembly of separate and independent creative works into a collective whole. A collection is not an adaptation."

Quote from: estar on July 13, 2023, 01:02:25 PM
Nice try moving the goalposts. But that situation is about an original work by the author. This discussion what it takes to reuse material.

Might want to tell GeekyBugle that. Regardless it's relevant because what's considered 'original' is ambiguous.

Quote from: estar on July 13, 2023, 01:02:25 PM
Reworking it to the point where is not considered a derivative work is applicable to material licensed under ORC as well any other license. The author would be able to license it out under whatever copyright terms they see fit.

No, it actually isn't, because there's no metric in which to measure how derivative mechanics are under Copyright law. That's the entire problem.

Quote from: estar on July 13, 2023, 01:02:25 PM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 13, 2023, 02:34:03 AM
Mechanics aren't considered Reserved Material, Third Party or otherwise.

You haven't read the text of the ORC license then.

Not sure what you're going on about but this is the only part that matters:

"Third Party Reserved Material means all intellectual property rights that are not or have not been licensed under the ORC License and that are neither owned nor controlled by Licensor or You or any person or entity that directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with You or Licensor."

The fact they differentiate between Reserved Material and Third Party Reserved Material is needlessly confusing, and yes mechanics could be a part of the latter under this definition. So I concede this point. But then how would you determine whether mechanics fall under this definition?

It also means #CallOfCthulhu is definitely under the ORC because it's based on BRP, which is licensed under the ORC, and both are owned/controlled by the same licensor.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 14, 2023, 04:02:48 PM
I WANT to be able to put in writing that "person A has a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to use my IP for your family-friend pro-Christian themed adventure or setting at no charge" and say "sorry, person B, you don't get a license because your concept for a supplement is the antithesis of everything I believe in."

The best you can do is create a trademark which requires others follow these guidelines in order to use, and then enforce it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 13, 2023, 07:33:48 PM
BY LAW, I can take your mechanics, create a gasme that goes against anything and everything you believe and claim compatibility with your game on the cover of mine and there's jack shit you can do about it. The only condition is I must make it in such a way as to not imply association or approval from you.

Almost as if this license is a complete waste of time and money.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 17, 2023, 04:33:00 PM
Inane drivel further proving you don't understand the differences and just want to be right

So, don't use it, if it's useless you have it easy, don't use it. Given the tangible results of the OGL I think you're not only wrong but stupid and are ignoring lawfare.

Now kindly go fuck yourself, puting you on mute (should have done so a while back).

Quote from: Rhymer88 on July 08, 2023, 03:06:57 AM
My problem is that I don't understand how this will impact things. For example: Pinnacle Entertainment supposedly supports the ORC license. Does this mean that anyone can now use the Savage World rules, or parts thereof, as long as they give the source? I very much doubt that is the case.

Pinnacle supports the ORC license because of Pathfinder and the Superheroic 5e rules book they have helped to publish. But Savage Worlds itself is not on the ORC license, as of this time. And I don't see that changing.

I see Pinnacle as a game company that's playing lip service to the woke crowd just barely enough to gain some social credit by those people but they aren't going full bore woke. It's like PEG is playing both sides.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 17, 2023, 04:33:00 PM
Almost as if this license is a complete waste of time and money.

The license is nice if you copy information from the SRD to create a game quicker. If every sentence is unique you probably don't need any license unless you are willing to let others borrow your text. I could be wrong but I think it's that simple.

Having said that, has any OSR game really created an ecosystem using the OSR the way 3.5 did?

Quote from: Ruprecht on July 17, 2023, 07:16:42 PM
Having said that, has any OSR game really created an ecosystem using the OSR the way 3.5 did?

To date there are over twice as many OSR products produced versus 3.5 products according to DriveThruRPG listings.

However,  Pathfinder has a 2,000 product lead over OSR products (12,000 versus 10,000).

And the Dungeon Master's Guild plus 5e-OGL product just dwarfs everything else with 30,000+ products.

Quote from: Ruprecht on July 17, 2023, 07:16:42 PM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 17, 2023, 04:33:00 PM
Almost as if this license is a complete waste of time and money.

The license is nice if you copy information from the SRD to create a game quicker. If every sentence is unique you probably don't need any license unless you are willing to let others borrow your text. I could be wrong but I think it's that simple.

Having said that, has any OSR game really created an ecosystem using the OSR the way 3.5 did?

But he's on the "Just make a clone of whatever and risk getting sued into oblivion while I sit here and laugh at you" camp.

Quote from: estar on July 17, 2023, 07:28:23 PM
To date there are over twice as many OSR products produced versus 3.5 products according to DriveThruRPG listings.

However,  Pathfinder has a 2,000 product lead over OSR products (12,000 versus 10,000).

And the Dungeon Master's Guild plus 5e-OGL product just dwarfs everything else with 30,000+ products.

I'm looking for a community around a single OSR product. Glog and Black Hack have mini communities but GLog did it without the OGL and the Black Hack community is based on alternate version of the black hack which doesn't really add to the Black Hack itself in any  meaningful way.

Quote from: Ruprecht on July 17, 2023, 09:43:08 PMI'm looking for a community around a single OSR product.

DCC and Mork Borg come to mind as OSR games with their own communities. Definitely lots of 3PP Kickstarters.

The main OSR community is focused on B/X and AD&D.

Quote from: Ruprecht on July 17, 2023, 09:43:08 PM
I'm looking for a community around a single OSR product. Glog and Black Hack have mini communities but GLog did it without the OGL and the Black Hack community is based on alternate version of the black hack which doesn't really add to the Black Hack itself in any  meaningful way.

A single product is irrelevant to the OSR as the focus is on classic D&D. Which means OSR works are compatible with each other.

As I correctly stated when WotC jumped the shark on their license, no one NEEDS a license due to US law on IP and game mechanics.  The ORC lic is also uneeded.   

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 11:59:37 AM
As I correctly stated when WotC jumped the shark on their license, no one NEEDS a license due to US law on IP and game mechanics.  The ORC lic is also uneeded.

Scooter, I don't know if you're aware of the history of TSR. From the early 1980s to when they were acquired in 1997, TSR made it a practice to issue cease-and-desist and lawsuits to successfully deter third parties from making D&D material. They reached an agreement with Mayfair Games who made some compatible modules, but then sued them for breach of contract in a later work.

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/04/bols-prime-the-many-lawsuits-of-tsr.html

Back when they were just a tiny startup company, Wizards of the Coast themselves were sued by Palladium Games for trying to make a compatible RPG book ("The Primal Order"). The ideal would have been a successful fighting back against TSR's claims -- but the OGL and now the ORC can be a major reassurance to commercial publishers.

Quote from: jhkim on July 18, 2023, 01:07:25 PM

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 11:59:37 AM
As I correctly stated when WotC jumped the shark on their license, no one NEEDS a license due to US law on IP and game mechanics.  The ORC lic is also uneeded.

but the OGL and now the ORC can be a major reassurance to commercial publishers.

In addition RPGs are more than just mechanics with flavor text and other creative choices that are protected by copyright forming a major part of the system's appeal. A SRD with open content the publisher is willing to share allows fans to do more than they can do under the  "mechanics can't be copyrighted" doctrine.

For a trivial example wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright. Sure it is not hard to come up with your own. But when you add up all the content in a system that is protectable "a mechanics only" clone starts becoming less and less like the original.

Quote from: jhkim on July 18, 2023, 01:07:25 PM
Scooter, I don't know if you're aware of the history of TSR.

I've been playing since the little books and knew Gary for many years.  So, YES I am WELL acquainted with TSR

Quote from: estar on July 18, 2023, 01:26:14 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 18, 2023, 01:07:25 PM

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 11:59:37 AM
As I correctly stated when WotC jumped the shark on their license, no one NEEDS a license due to US law on IP and game mechanics.  The ORC lic is also uneeded.

but the OGL and now the ORC can be a major reassurance to commercial publishers.

In addition RPGs are more than just mechanics with flavor text and other creative choices that are protected by copyright forming a major part of the system's appeal. A SRD with open content the publisher is willing to share allows fans to do more than they can do under the  "mechanics can't be copyrighted" doctrine.

For a trivial example wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright. Sure it is not hard to come up with your own. But when you add up all the content in a system that is protectable "a mechanics only" clone starts becoming less and less like the original.

Lets not forget the systems that aren't D&D and were put under the OGL to open them to the masses:

OpenD6, Open Core/Anime, Action!, Cepheus Engine...

What guarantee is there that WotKKK won't go back on their word and rescind the OGL? How would that affect those systems/games? What about the games based on them?

Quote from: estar on July 18, 2023, 01:26:14 PM
In addition RPGs are more than just mechanics with flavor text and other creative choices that are protected by copyright forming a major part of the system's appeal. A SRD with open content the publisher is willing to share allows fans to do more than they can do under the  "mechanics can't be copyrighted" doctrine.

For a trivial example wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright. Sure it is not hard to come up with your own. But when you add up all the content in a system that is protectable "a mechanics only" clone starts becoming less and less like the original.

"wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright..." Couldn't make heads nor tails of that.

ONLY if one wished to use others IP like game setting, proper noun characters or proper noun things does one need a license.  Otherwise no.  I'll give you C&C rule books as an example.  They could (and will in the future) publish those same rules with NO license from WotC.  A MUCH better option is to have a competent IP lawyer to consult with when you want to publish stuff. 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 01:54:26 PM


Lets not forget the systems that aren't D&D and were put under the OGL to open them to the masses:

OpenD6, Open Core/Anime, Action!, Cepheus Engine...

Completely unnecessary in the case of Cepheus unless they wanted to use something like the IISS from Marc's IP.  Not familiar enough to the others you mentioned.

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:55:04 PM

Quote from: estar on July 18, 2023, 01:26:14 PM
In addition RPGs are more than just mechanics with flavor text and other creative choices that are protected by copyright forming a major part of the system's appeal. A SRD with open content the publisher is willing to share allows fans to do more than they can do under the  "mechanics can't be copyrighted" doctrine.

For a trivial example wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright. Sure it is not hard to come up with your own. But when you add up all the content in a system that is protectable "a mechanics only" clone starts becoming less and less like the original.

"wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright..." Couldn't make heads nor tails of that.

ONLY if one wished to use others IP like game setting, proper noun characters or proper noun things does one need a license.  Otherwise no.  I'll give you C&C rule books as an example.  They could (and will in the future) publish those same rules with NO license from WotC.  A MUCH better option is to have a competent IP lawyer to consult with when you want to publish stuff.

Meaning ONLY those who can afford such counsel can publish games... Yeah, I can see how that's a "MUCH BETTER OPTION" /Sarcasm

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:58:08 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 01:54:26 PM


Lets not forget the systems that aren't D&D and were put under the OGL to open them to the masses:

OpenD6, Open Core/Anime, Action!, Cepheus Engine...

Completely unnecessary in the case of Cepheus unless they wanted to use something like the IISS from Marc's IP.  Not familiar enough to the others you mentioned.

And the games based on Cepheus? You're clearly on the "Publish whatever and get sued while I laugh at you" camp.

A license gives certainty about what YOU can use of MY stuff and not get sued by me or my descendants.

Something obvious to everyone except you and your fellow travellers.

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:48:23 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 18, 2023, 01:07:25 PM
Scooter, I don't know if you're aware of the history of TSR.

I've been playing since the little books and knew Gary for many years.  So, YES I am WELL acquainted with TSR

Cool. No offense intended.

The point being, given the history of lawsuits, I think commercial publishers are rightly wary of publishing compatible works with no license. It might be technically legal, but it isn't worth the risk.

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:55:04 PM
"wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright..." Couldn't make heads nor tails of that.

I mean that the content of a wandering monster table is a creative choice thus protectable by copyright.

What isn't protectable is the design of a wandering monster in that you roll some dice and look up an entry.

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:55:04 PM
ONLY if one wished to use others IP like game setting, proper noun characters or proper noun things does one need a license.  Otherwise no.  I'll give you C&C rule books as an example.  They could (and will in the future) publish those same rules with NO license from WotC.

I considered that with my Majestic Fantasy RPG as well. However, with the 5e SRD being licensed under CC-BY I don't see the need.

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:55:04 PM
A MUCH better option is to have a competent IP lawyer to consult with when you want to publish stuff.

The best option is to have an open content license stating what the author is willing to share and the conditions. People are not going to hire an IP attorney for a project that they write in their hobby time.

All these problems result from people trying to use content from other people who don't explicitly share their content. It is not a problem with my stuff because I declare the material I authored as 100% open content under a variety of licenses. A guy in Hungary doesn't have to hunt me down to ask me permission to make a translation of Blackmarsh.

https://khv.lfg.hu/files/2013/12/feketelap.pdf

Or other languages and other RPG systems.
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2022/06/perilleuses-contrees-fangenoire.html

Thus the solution I advocate is to share your stuff, and give back to the hobby without conditions other than a credit by using an open license. But if the author is not comfortable with that for whatever reason then that is OK too. But expect things to get nuanced and complicated if only part of the work is shared with narrow conditions.

Quote from: estar on July 18, 2023, 02:52:37 PM

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:55:04 PM
"wandering monster tables are not a mechanic as what monsters go where is a creative expression protectable by copyright..." Couldn't make heads nor tails of that.

I mean that the content of a wandering monster table is a creative choice thus protectable by copyright.

What isn't protectable is the design of a wandering monster in that you roll some dice and look up an entry.

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:55:04 PM
ONLY if one wished to use others IP like game setting, proper noun characters or proper noun things does one need a license.  Otherwise no.  I'll give you C&C rule books as an example.  They could (and will in the future) publish those same rules with NO license from WotC.

I considered that with my Majestic Fantasy RPG as well. However, with the 5e SRD being licensed under CC-BY I don't see the need.

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 01:55:04 PM
A MUCH better option is to have a competent IP lawyer to consult with when you want to publish stuff.

The best option is to have an open content license stating what the author is willing to share and the conditions. People are not going to hire an IP attorney for a project that they write in their hobby time.

All these problems result from people trying to use content from other people who don't explicitly share their content. It is not a problem with my stuff because I declare the material I authored as 100% open content under a variety of licenses. A guy in Hungary doesn't have to hunt me down to ask me permission to make a translation of Blackmarsh.

https://khv.lfg.hu/files/2013/12/feketelap.pdf

Or other languages and other RPG systems.
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2022/06/perilleuses-contrees-fangenoire.html

Thus the solution I advocate is to share your stuff, and give back to the hobby without conditions other than a credit by using an open license. But if the author is not comfortable with that for whatever reason then that is OK too. But expect things to get nuanced and complicated if only part of the work is shared with narrow conditions.

Here's the issue with the CC BY: What if I don't want ALL of my setting to be open content? I am of the opinion that you can but the license isn't clear about it, while the ORC license allows for a distinction between closed and open content, giving others the oportunity to use whatever someone declares as open without risks and still allowing for the creator to close whatever he wishes to (except the mechanics that can't be closed).

The more permisive license is to put stuff in the public domain, and I'm not sure about mixing that with new stuff without opening the new stuff too.

When I finish my game I'm going to use the ORC License, maybe for everything, maybe for parts and maybe only on an SRD, it all depends on how much effort I want to put into opening stuff.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 02:16:13 PM


Meaning ONLY those who can afford such counsel can publish games... Yeah, I can see how that's a "MUCH BETTER OPTION" /Sarcasm

The cost is trivial

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 03:10:33 PM
I mean that the content of a wandering monster table is a creative choice thus protectable by copyright.

No it is NOT. There is specific case law on this.  From a precedent setting case in Texas earlier in this current century

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 03:10:33 PM
Here's the issue with the CC BY: What if I don't want ALL of my setting to be open content?


I am of the opinion that you can but the license isn't clear about it

My recommendation with CC-BY is that the simplest solution is to release your book without a license and release what you are willing to share under CC-BY as a separate document. The additional burden is having to do the layout of a second document. But the result is crystal clear on what you are comfortable with sharing. And with the benefit that having a second document that only has the content you are willing to share is more user-friendly.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 03:10:33 PM
I am of the opinion that you can but the license isn't clear about it, while the ORC license allows for a distinction between closed and open content, giving others the oportunity to use whatever someone declares as open without risks and still allowing for the creator to close whatever he wishes to (except the mechanics that can't be closed).

ORC does have an advantage in that it requires licensors to distinguish between different types of content.

However, choosing ORC means requiring all those who use your content (even if it is just a part of the setting) to open any game mechanics they write. Licensees and Licensors of ORC content don't have the option of keeping any game mechanics they have Reserved Material (closed content). There is one exception and that is for third-party game mechanics you license from someone else.

That if that works for you then ORC is a good way to go.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 03:10:33 PM
The more permisive license is to put stuff in the public domain, and I'm not sure about mixing that with new stuff without opening the new stuff too.

The problem with putting things into the public domain is that it is a grey area or even prohibited in many countries. If you do include an explicit declaration in your work like CC0 from Creative COmmons.

As for remixing, the public domain doesn't make the derivative work public domain. For example, the bookWicked isn't public domain because it is based on the public domain book Wizard of OZ. Instead, the author of Wicked is protected by copyright just as if he wrote a completely new book about life from the point of view of an evil witch.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 03:10:33 PM
When I finish my game I'm going to use the ORC License, maybe for everything, maybe for parts and maybe only on an SRD, it all depends on how much effort I want to put into opening stuff.

Sounds good. For my part, my intent is to make my work open content under multiple licenses including ORC.

Quote from: estar on July 18, 2023, 03:59:27 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 03:10:33 PM
Here's the issue with the CC BY: What if I don't want ALL of my setting to be open content?


I am of the opinion that you can but the license isn't clear about it

My recommendation with CC-BY is that the simplest solution is to release your book without a license and release what you are willing to share under CC-BY as a separate document. The additional burden is having to do the layout of a second document. But the result is crystal clear on what you are comfortable with sharing. And with the benefit that having a second document that only has the content you are willing to share is more user-friendly.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 03:10:33 PM
I am of the opinion that you can but the license isn't clear about it, while the ORC license allows for a distinction between closed and open content, giving others the oportunity to use whatever someone declares as open without risks and still allowing for the creator to close whatever he wishes to (except the mechanics that can't be closed).

ORC does have an advantage in that it requires licensors to distinguish between different types of content.

However, choosing ORC means requiring all those who use your content (even if it is just a part of the setting) to open any game mechanics they write. Licensees and Licensors of ORC content don't have the option of keeping any game mechanics they have Reserved Material (closed content). There is one exception and that is for third-party game mechanics you license from someone else.

That if that works for you then ORC is a good way to go.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 03:10:33 PM
The more permisive license is to put stuff in the public domain, and I'm not sure about mixing that with new stuff without opening the new stuff too.

The problem with putting things into the public domain is that it is a grey area or even prohibited in many countries. If you do include an explicit declaration in your work like CC0 from Creative COmmons.

As for remixing, the public domain doesn't make the derivative work public domain. For example, the bookWicked isn't public domain because it is based on the public domain book Wizard of OZ. Instead, the author of Wicked is protected by copyright just as if he wrote a completely new book about life from the point of view of an evil witch.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 03:10:33 PM
When I finish my game I'm going to use the ORC License, maybe for everything, maybe for parts and maybe only on an SRD, it all depends on how much effort I want to put into opening stuff.

Sounds good. For my part, my intent is to make my work open content under multiple licenses including ORC.

Let's say I do like you say and publish an SRD under CC BY... Downstream users will find their work has just become CC BY on it's entirety... That's very open and according with the Open Software Talibans tastes, nut sure it's a good choice to encourage others to create stuff based on/for your game.

On the other hand ORC has an explicit way for you tu use whatever I put under it with exactly no obligation to make your IP open, only the game mechanics you create and include, which is a good compromise, because I can always choose to put EVERYTHING under it or under public domain (CC0).

For example my Pulp Bestiary, that one will be 100% open, given that it's a bestiary it'll go under CC0 with a plea to give me credit for it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 04:28:29 PM
Let's say I do like you say and publish an SRD under CC BY... Downstream users will find their work has just become CC BY on it's entirety... That's very open and according with the Open Software Talibans tastes, nut sure it's a good choice to encourage others to create stuff based on/for your game.

No the downstream users do not have to share their work under CC-BY. When somebody wants to do that they use CC-BY-SA. They can share their work under any license they want as long as they also require the downstream user to give you credit.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 04:28:29 PM
On the other hand ORC has an explicit way for you tu use whatever I put under it with exactly no obligation to make your IP open, only the game mechanics you create and include, which is a good compromise because I can always choose to put EVERYTHING under it or under public domain (CC0).

Again with ORC all game mechanics has to be made Licensed Material (open content) whether it is found in the IP you are using or something you created. Setting and adventure details you are correct in that you have the option of making it Reserved Material (closed content).

With CC-BY you can make your entire work closed content, game mechanics and everything else. No obligation to share anything. Of course somebody can go back to the original source that is licensed CC-BY and build off of that. But they can't build it off your material.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 04:28:29 PM
For example my Pulp Bestiary, that one will be 100% open, given that it's a bestiary it'll go under CC0 with a plea to give me credit for it.

Sounds good to me. You could achieve the same thing without the plea and make the credit a requirement by using CC-BY. To be clear the user of CC-BY is under no obligation to share the content that they made based off of it. A person using your CC-BY licensed Bestiary doesn't have to open up the adventure, setting, rulebook, or supplement using that content. They just have to give you credit in the form that you specify. The reason you may want to do that because thanks to the recent OGL fiasco, more people are aware of CC-BY and what it means compared to CC0.

Quote from: estar on July 18, 2023, 05:19:57 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 04:28:29 PM
Let's say I do like you say and publish an SRD under CC BY... Downstream users will find their work has just become CC BY on it's entirety... That's very open and according with the Open Software Talibans tastes, nut sure it's a good choice to encourage others to create stuff based on/for your game.

No the downstream users do not have to share their work under CC-BY. When somebody wants to do that they use CC-BY-SA. They can share their work under any license they want as long as they also require the downstream user to give you credit.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 04:28:29 PM
On the other hand ORC has an explicit way for you tu use whatever I put under it with exactly no obligation to make your IP open, only the game mechanics you create and include, which is a good compromise because I can always choose to put EVERYTHING under it or under public domain (CC0).

Again with ORC all game mechanics has to be made Licensed Material (open content) whether it is found in the IP you are using or something you created. Setting and adventure details you are correct in that you have the option of making it Reserved Material (closed content).

With CC-BY you can make your entire work closed content, game mechanics and everything else. No obligation to share anything. Of course somebody can go back to the original source that is licensed CC-BY and build off of that. But they can't build it off your material.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 04:28:29 PM
For example my Pulp Bestiary, that one will be 100% open, given that it's a bestiary it'll go under CC0 with a plea to give me credit for it.

Sounds good to me. You could achieve the same thing without the plea and make the credit a requirement by using CC-BY. To be clear the user of CC-BY is under no obligation to share the content that they made based off of it. A person using your CC-BY licensed Bestiary doesn't have to open up the adventure, setting, rulebook, or supplement using that content. They just have to give you credit in the form that you specify. The reason you may want to do that because thanks to the recent OGL fiasco, more people are aware of CC-BY and what it means compared to CC0.

Are you sure about CC BY? heading there to read it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 05:40:03 PM
Are you sure about CC BY? heading there to read it.

Very sure and I have read legal text of the license as well.

Quote from: estar on July 18, 2023, 05:55:10 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 05:40:03 PM
Are you sure about CC BY? heading there to read it.

Very sure and I have read legal text of the license as well.

Yeah. I agree with estar on this. CC-BY is non-viral, and doesn't impose any requirement for someone who uses CC-BY stuff to share their work.

(As opposed to CC-BY-SA, which is viral like many open-source licenses.)

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 03:11:47 PM
The cost is trivial

The cost of an IP lawyer is trivial? My poor IP law students.  :'(

Quote from: S'mon on July 19, 2023, 04:04:07 AM

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 03:11:47 PM
The cost is trivial

The cost of an IP lawyer is trivial? My poor IP law students.  :'(

$400-$800 US/Hour is trivial? Does he know how many hours are you paying minimum?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 19, 2023, 11:10:44 AM

Quote from: S'mon on July 19, 2023, 04:04:07 AM

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 03:11:47 PM
The cost is trivial

The cost of an IP lawyer is trivial? My poor IP law students.  :'(

$400-$800 US/Hour is trivial? Does he know how many hours are you paying minimum?

I have to say, 'the cost is trivial' when discussing legal action and fees is right up there in 'amazingly fucking stupid things to say'.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 19, 2023, 11:21:12 AM
I have to say, 'the cost is trivial' when discussing legal action and fees is right up there in 'amazingly fucking stupid things to say'.

Relatively "trivial" compared to not paying it and then getting sued.  Like buying car insurance is not trivial but it is a trivial cost compared to having to pay liability and for a new car after an accident because you didn't have car insurance.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2023, 11:57:43 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 19, 2023, 11:21:12 AM
I have to say, 'the cost is trivial' when discussing legal action and fees is right up there in 'amazingly fucking stupid things to say'.

Relatively "trivial" compared to not paying it and then getting sued.  Like buying car insurance is not trivial but it is a trivial cost compared to having to pay liability and for a new car after an accident because you didn't have car insurance.

Legal advice does not necessarily prevent you being sued; it can help you avoid obvious pitfalls but it cannot stop a spurious claim against you. It greatly, greatly increases your chances of winning the case in court (actually it's nearly impossible to win without advice I'd say, if the other side has advice), and it can very often deter all but the most rabid spurious litigants.

Anyway the average OSR publisher won't pay $1600 or $3200 for basic legal advice, they'd rather take their chances, or not publish.

Quote from: S'mon on July 19, 2023, 04:04:07 AM

Quote from: Scooter on July 18, 2023, 03:11:47 PM
The cost is trivial

The cost of an IP lawyer is trivial? My poor IP law students.  :'(

For that easy task. Yes.  You aren't too experienced in business dealing with IP.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 19, 2023, 11:10:44 AM
$400-$800 US/Hour is trivial? Does he know how many hours are you paying minimum?

Yes, because the publisher does ALL the scut work and it only takes the atty an hour of two.  God, have you no experience in publishing anything with I.P.?????

Quote from: Scooter on July 19, 2023, 12:31:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 19, 2023, 11:10:44 AM
$400-$800 US/Hour is trivial? Does he know how many hours are you paying minimum?

Yes, because the publisher does ALL the scut work and it only takes the atty an hour of two.  God, have you no experience in publishing anything with I.P.?????

So I need to hire a publisher (about 50% if they agree to go for a cut of sales and not for money upfront), then hire an IP attorney, any other expense you want me to add instead of just using stuff licensed under an open license?

Quote from: S'mon on July 19, 2023, 12:23:41 PM
Anyway the average OSR publisher won't pay $1600 or $3200 for basic legal advice, they'd rather take their chances, or not publish.

There is also the fact that many publishers, like myself, make it extremely clear what is being shared, and are willing to answer questions. As well as using licenses with a lot of history and examples behind them like the OGL or CC-BY.

Quote from: Scooter on July 19, 2023, 12:31:56 PM
Yes, because the publisher does ALL the scut work and it only takes the atty an hour of two.  God, have you no experience in publishing anything with I.P.?????

I have considerable experience in publishing and if one is willing to do the scut work and do the homework. Then you don't have to incur these experiences.  The only time I engaged IP attorneys is when I was about to sign or create a formal contract. Once when I licensed the Judges Guild IP, and once when I needed a set of standard contracts for artists I want to commission work from.

Plus I am smart enough to realize that if an author does not clearly state using one of the common licenses that they are sharing. Then it is probably not a good idea to try to use their content without asking them questions first.

This is not an issue with any of the things I share as open content for others to use. Not only I use a commonly used license, I make a separate document that has nothing but the shared content.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 19, 2023, 01:46:42 PM
So I need to hire a publisher (about 50% if they agree to go for a cut of sales and not for money upfront), then hire an IP attorney, any other expense you want me to add instead of just using stuff licensed under an open license?

The only issue you face at the moment, is that the license for the content you want to sue is not very clear as to what the author is giving permission for. So that means there is an element of risk for you. I personally would not be comfortable adapting that person's material without communicating with them first. If he said he was OK under CC-BY then I would not have a problem in that case.

I had a situation where I wanted to adapt an Adventurer Conqueror King subsystem (trade rules) for my own supplement under CC-BY. So I went and messaged @amacris first and asked.

Quote from: estar on July 19, 2023, 02:12:45 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 19, 2023, 01:46:42 PM
So I need to hire a publisher (about 50% if they agree to go for a cut of sales and not for money upfront), then hire an IP attorney, any other expense you want me to add instead of just using stuff licensed under an open license?

The only issue you face at the moment, is that the license for the content you want to sue is not very clear as to what the author is giving permission for. So that means there is an element of risk for you. I personally would not be comfortable adapting that person's material without communicating with them first. If he said he was OK under CC-BY then I would not have a problem in that case.

I had a situation where I wanted to adapt an Adventurer Conqueror King subsystem (trade rules) for my own supplement under CC-BY. So I went and messaged @amacris first and asked.

What I wanted to do with 3DT+ is irrelevant, I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.

I'm talking in more general terms, about using your stuff for instance or using stuff from BRP in contrast.

I have been developing a game for a while now, since the OGL debacle I'm purging it from any WotKKK owned IP or anything that could be mistaken for it and reworking the language so as to be on the clear. It will be published under the ORC almost for sure, or I'll make an SRD (if I can be arsed to) and put that under CC BY.

Quote from: estar on July 19, 2023, 02:07:43 PM
I have considerable experience in publishing and if one is willing to do the scut work and do the homework.

NOT by your questions you don't.

Quote from: Scooter on July 19, 2023, 03:33:32 PM

Quote from: estar on July 19, 2023, 02:07:43 PM
I have considerable experience in publishing and if one is willing to do the scut work and do the homework.

NOT by your questions you don't.

OMG, you REALLY are that stupid! Just let me get the popcorn this is gunna be gut.

Five pages of legal word salad.
The ORC license is shit, IMNSHO.

So here's a very simple test for exactly how much the ORC protects you from lawsuits, which is its primary purpose: What is the basis for determining if a violation has taken place? Because if you can't answer that clearly, then someone will do so for you in a court of law should they choose to.

Quote from: Ruprecht on July 17, 2023, 07:16:42 PM
The license is nice if you copy information from the SRD to create a game quicker.

The ORC was specifically designed to avoid the need for an SRD.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 01:54:26 PM
Lets not forget the systems that aren't D&D and were put under the OGL to open them to the masses:

OpenD6, Open Core/Anime, Action!, Cepheus Engine...

What guarantee is there that WotKKK won't go back on their word and rescind the OGL? How would that affect those systems/games? What about the games based on them?

#WotC cannot invalidate a contract they are not a party to even if they wrote the contract. So those are fine. Moreover the OGL can simply be revised and relicensed by anyone now that it's under the CC-BY.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 19, 2023, 01:46:42 PM
So I need to hire a publisher (about 50% if they agree to go for a cut of sales and not for money upfront), then hire an IP attorney, any other expense you want me to add instead of in addition to just using stuff licensed under an open license?

#FTFY

Quote from: estar on July 19, 2023, 02:12:45 PM
The only issue you face at the moment, is that the license for the content you want to sue is not very clear as to what the author is giving permission for.

You don't say.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 20, 2023, 04:09:25 PM
So here's a very simple test for exactly how much the ORC protects you from lawsuits, which is its primary purpose: What is the basis for determining if a violation has taken place? Because if you can't answer that clearly, then someone will do so for you in a court of law should they choose to.

Quote from: Ruprecht on July 17, 2023, 07:16:42 PM
The license is nice if you copy information from the SRD to create a game quicker.

The ORC was specifically designed to avoid the need for an SRD.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 01:54:26 PM
Lets not forget the systems that aren't D&D and were put under the OGL to open them to the masses:

OpenD6, Open Core/Anime, Action!, Cepheus Engine...

What guarantee is there that WotKKK won't go back on their word and rescind the OGL? How would that affect those systems/games? What about the games based on them?

#WotC cannot invalidate a contract they are not a party to even if they wrote the contract. So those are fine. Moreover the OGL can simply be revised and relicensed by anyone now that it's under the CC-BY.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 19, 2023, 01:46:42 PM
So I need to hire a publisher (about 50% if they agree to go for a cut of sales and not for money upfront), then hire an IP attorney, any other expense you want me to add instead of in addition to just using stuff licensed under an open license?

#FTFY

Quote from: estar on July 19, 2023, 02:12:45 PM
The only issue you face at the moment, is that the license for the content you want to sue is not very clear as to what the author is giving permission for.

You don't say.

Bolding mine.

Wait, the OGL was put under the CC BY? Where and when? Can you link to that?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 20, 2023, 04:16:17 PM
Wait, the OGL was put under the CC BY? Where and when? Can you link to that?

I believe this is what he's referring to:  https://screenrant.com/dnd-ogl-update-srd-creative-commons-dungeons-dragons/#:~:text=As%20announced%20on%20Twitter%20via%20the%20D%26D%20Beyond,under%20a%20Creative%20Commons%20Attribution%204.0%20International%20License.

It's not the OGL, it's the SRD.  The OGL1.0a has been covered under a "in purpituity" clause that my wife explains as WOTC sort of releasing to the wild.  They still own it but it's now a public domain document for all intent and purposes.  There was more legalize in the explanation but that's the gist of it.  I'm so glad I'm not a lawyer.

Quote from: Scooter on July 19, 2023, 03:33:32 PM

Quote from: estar on July 19, 2023, 02:07:43 PM
I have considerable experience in publishing and if one is willing to do the scut work and do the homework.

NOT by your questions you don't.

I guess you are right and the fact I had 11 gold sellers on DriveThruRPG and currently 8,338 total sales as Bat in the Attic Games along with 20,000+ downloads of Blackmarsh means I haven't learned anything.

On second thought I think I will let the folks here judge for themselves whether the comments and advice I give are useful to them.

LOL burn.