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.