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.