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:

"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.