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?