We're not talking about anything else but TTRPGs, so what's the optimal Open License for us?

Let's start by defining an Open License:

IMHO it has to guarentee 3 freedoms:

The freedom to access (this doesn't mean free as in free beer but as in no one should be able to prevent you from buying/accessing the game).

The freedom to hack (which means no one should be able to stop ANYONE from creating a derivative work)

The freedom to publish/sell (which means no one should be able to prevent you from doing so)

While NOT infringing on your other rights.

All of which entails ZERO morality clause (not woke, not Christian, not anything period).

But allows the creator to retain his IP rights. Which means it needs to allow for an enumeration of stuff on the book that's NOT under the license.

So, by this definition the OGL was never an Open License, neither is the Cypher one is (since it contains a morality clause and other stuff but I won't go into a point by point analysis).

Thoughts? Needs to guarantee anything else?

One way or another the whole "indicate compatibility" issue needs to be addressed and settled. I'm not strongly married to any answer, but there should be an answer.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 02:16:10 PM
One way or another the whole "indicate compatibility" issue needs to be addressed and settled. I'm not strongly married to any answer, but there should be an answer.

But there's an answer: "Without infringing on your other rights"

By law you CAN, without the need for a special license do so.

So I'm on the side of "people should be able to indicate compatibility because it's the law, don't like it? Change the law!"

As a future published TTRPG designer I freaking LOOOOOOVE the idea of people writting and selling stuff that's compatible with my shit and saying so. It's a win-win IMHO.

Should the license allow people to create derivatives of the same?

IMHO? Maybe, provided the derivatives change the name so as to not cause confusion.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 02:20:29 PM
But there's an answer: "Without infringing on your other rights"

By law you CAN, without the need for a special license do so.

So I'm on the side of "people should be able to indicate compatibility because it's the law, don't like it? Change the law!"

Unfortunately this is an area where regardless of what the law says, the OGL (and, prior to the OGL, TSR) muddied the waters, so it probably pays to make it clear.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 02:27:46 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 02:20:29 PM
But there's an answer: "Without infringing on your other rights"

By law you CAN, without the need for a special license do so.

So I'm on the side of "people should be able to indicate compatibility because it's the law, don't like it? Change the law!"

Unfortunately this is an area where regardless of what the law says, the OGL (and, prior to the OGL, TSR) muddied the waters, so it probably pays to make it clear.

LOL, sorry, you meant in the actual text of the license? Yeah, I can see the need for that (thank you so much WotC).

Regarding WotC, maybe it also needs a reminder that rules/mechanics can't be copyrighted?

I don't think there will ever be an open license by your standards because publishers are going to want something. Control of compatibility claims (probably by a separate license, like the old d20 STL) is a big deal because it gives them brand protection.

Quote from: JeremyR on January 15, 2023, 05:23:56 PM
I don't think there will ever be an open license by your standards because publishers are going to want something. Control of compatibility claims (probably by a separate license, like the old d20 STL) is a big deal because it gives them brand protection.

Well, then those AREN'T Open Licenses.

As for the "there will ever be an open license by your standards"... The CC By SA already exists.

I think you have nailed it. When you submit something to the license, it needs wording that lets you keep out your specific things, such as cities, worlds, gods, etc., while allowing game mechanicy things whether or not those can actually be copyrightable, as well as a way to submit other things as freely useable.

The people using anything licensed in this way must be absolutely sure you haven't left any way in which you can trick them later.  Whatever you submit must be for all purposes, irrevocable, royalty free, etc.

Unlike the OGL, it cannot secretly try to make you not say "Rape Simulator 1000 is compatible with Paizo (TM)'s Pathfinder v2" or whatever.  You know, in the same way you have always been able to specify this sort of thing legally.  And as my hyperbole indicates, obviously no sketchy morality clause.

You can write whatever you want. It can be totally compatible to D&D mechanically. Just don't use their trademarked stuff.

They can't come after you for using the rules, and as long as you don't word-for-word use their SRD, but still use the mechanics, you're fine. The question now is - why require yourself to seek the license from a garbage company like WotC to do your game the way you want to do it?

Go write the game. Unless you want license your own creations to others... then you're going to have to create your own License... but to me that's putting the cart before the horse.

The caveat, of course, is nothing stops WotC lawyers from coming after you *regardless* of whether it's legal or not, if they want to just scare you off, or bankrupt you. They're likely going to ignore you, unless your game becomes a real "threat".

I think a worthwhile question to ask is "is an open license even the best fit for the RPG industry if you're hoping to repeat the beneficial network effect the OGL used to provide?"

Sidebar: if you missed it in the other thread; Geeky, I was wrong and I apologize. I had confused you with another poster in that thread in my memory and so I apologize and will try to do better in the future.

Quote from: tenbones on January 15, 2023, 06:55:46 PM
You can write whatever you want. It can be totally compatible to D&D mechanically. Just don't use their trademarked stuff.

They can't come after you for using the rules, and as long as you don't word-for-word use their SRD, but still use the mechanics, you're fine. The question now is - why require yourself to seek the license from a garbage company like WotC to do your game the way you want to do it?

Go write the game. Unless you want license your own creations to others... then you're going to have to create your own License... but to me that's putting the cart before the horse.

The caveat, of course, is nothing stops WotC lawyers from coming after you *regardless* of whether it's legal or not, if they want to just scare you off, or bankrupt you. They're likely going to ignore you, unless your game becomes a real "threat".

I am writting the game (right now working on the bestiary), the license thing is to let others use my stuff without worries, and like I said I WANT them to say it's compatible with my stuff, because that creates a network effect, it's a win-win.

I don't want the license from any company, in my case I'm probably gonna use CC By SA, the thread is more of a hypotethical discussion as to what the optimal open license would look like.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 07:00:33 PM
I think a worthwhile question to ask is "is an open license even the best fit for the RPG industry if you're hoping to repeat the beneficial network effect the OGL used to provide?"

Sidebar: if you missed it in the other thread; Geeky, I was wrong and I apologize. I had confused you with another poster in that thread in my memory and so I apologize and will try to do better in the future.

If it requires you to give credit to those you're taking stuff from? Yes, totally. The network effect came from two things: Compatibility (even if Wanker on the Beach didn't allow you to say it WAS compatible with their shit), plenty of OSR games say they are compatible with another.
Crediting the other games front and center, like White Star does with White Box who does it woth S&W.

No problem, don't worry and don't think about it.

For me, the most valuable part of the OGL was "safe space" for content creators it provided.

Sure, you can't copyright mechanics, but you can copyright their expression. And what the original OGL did was allow you to just cut and paste the provider's mechanics without fear of infringing on that expression part... nor when using concepts that are copyrightable that were included (ex. sorting dragons by color/metal, reptilian kobolds, the D&D catalogue of demons and devils, arcane/divine magic, D&D's specific eight schools of magic, the nine levels of spells and specific spells' placement within that framework, etc.).

Access to those without having to consider whether your particular expression is going to be close enough the originator can hit you with a C&D will save a lot of development time for content creators; freeing them to be able to focus on the parts that will actually offer additional value to their product (and therefore the customers).

Similarly, the "no claims of compatibility without separate written permission" is a valuable benefit to game system creators who want to project a specific image to their clients. It's not like it has to be hard or cost money to get that permission... but the ability of say, a Christian ttrpg system creator, to not allow a third party using their mechanics to produce a module glorifying the Church of Satan and claim compatibility with the Christian's system is of value to the Christian content creator.

Put more simply, Freedom of Association can't be a one way street where only one of the parties has a choice as to whether to be associated or not. One should not be able to release "the pedophile's guide to grooming" with "a supplement for [insert your game system here]" in two-inch high letters on their front cover and you have no say in the matter because they aren't using your actual logo while doing so.

That's the value of that clause of the OGL... its an important protection for the producer side of the license.

Thus, each party gets something of value. The third parties get to use cut and paste expressions of mechanics instead of having to waste time rewriting then in their own words and access to a variety of pre-built mechanical widgets with varying degrees of conceptual fluff text attached. The granters gain the assurance that no one cutting and pasting those mechanics will be able to claim compatibility with their product without their active permission.

That actually provides much more of a "safe workplace environment" than reliance upon a more open license (where the rights flow only one way) would.