Quote from: jhkim on January 07, 2023, 08:45:39 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 07:31:27 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 06:43:25 PM
What advantage does Creative Commons have versus just having an SRD without art and declaring it Public Domain?

Creative Commons license means you have to actually say you used my work as part of your own when making your own products off it.

Basically, I did a lot of work and I'm offering to give it away with a perpetual irrevocable royalty-free license. The least you can do is include a line of text on your credits page saying "includes material produced by Christopher D. Johnson of Siege Engine Games under terms of the Creative Commons License."

Yup. That's CC Attribution ("CC-BY"). You could also choose to release under CC-BY-SA which is "Share Alike", meaning that whoever uses your work also has to release under CC-BY-SA and share their material with the world.

A potential problem with CC is releasing a mix of non-open and open content in the same work. It's easy if you fully own everything. But if someone uses your "Share Alike" work and then closes off a bunch of their stuff, it could be seen as violating the intent of the "Share Alike" clause.

The WotC OGL is different from Creative Commons in that it explicitly encourages a mix of closed and open material. And the closed stuff is even more closed than usual - because by using "Product Identity" someone would be not just violating copyright, they'd be violating the terms of the license. Most of the open-source licenses don't have this, because it can extremely hinder open source development.

Nope, you CAN close your own stuff that's not a derivative of CC By/CC By SA (CC0 is basically public domain).

For instance, I release some game art (as I have done) in OpenGameArt under CC By SA, you can use my art in a closed source game, you can mix my art with art under copyright, what you can't do is to close the art I released under those licenses.

The trick is (in the case of TTRPGs) to explicitly and precisely define exactly what IS under CC By/CC By SA.

Which, IMHO, can be done by writting:

With the exception of the art (whose IP is (c) the artist and is used with license), logos, brand name, proper names, (add what you want to not make open content) everything else in this wortk is under CC By.

I have seen TTRPG stuff like that before, mainly from Spain and Brazil.

Edited to add a free/downloadable example of a game put under CCBySA with propietary/closed stuff mixed and kept as such:

You need to scroll down to find the link to download the pdf.
https://davidcollinsrivera.com/#stardrifter

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 11:16:56 AM
CC By guarantees the author people using his stuff will give him credit.
CC By SA adds the guarantee that downstream is also kept open and with a notice of it being open.

If you didn't actually care about credit Public domain seems better. Anyone can use it for anything without worrying about mixing and matching licenses. If someone mixes questionable content into their product that is their problem, not mine.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 01:13:35 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 11:16:56 AM
CC By guarantees the author people using his stuff will give him credit.
CC By SA adds the guarantee that downstream is also kept open and with a notice of it being open.

If you didn't actually care about credit Public domain seems better. Anyone can use it for anything without worrying about mixing and matching licenses. If someone mixes questionable content into their product that is their problem, not mine.

I care about being credited for my work.

If me granting you free use of the fruits of my labors in exchange for the simple act putting a line giving me credit for my work isn't generous enough for you then you can rightly fuck off.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 01:13:35 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 11:16:56 AM
CC By guarantees the author people using his stuff will give him credit.
CC By SA adds the guarantee that downstream is also kept open and with a notice of it being open.

If you didn't actually care about credit Public domain seems better. Anyone can use it for anything without worrying about mixing and matching licenses. If someone mixes questionable content into their product that is their problem, not mine.

If anyone mixes "questionable content" with my stuff released under CC By SA is their problem not mine, the license doesn't make me responsible of how you use the material. In the same way that manufacturing a frying pan doesn't make me responsible of you killing someone with it.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:30:26 PM
That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.

Oh, I hope it isn't that open-and-shut, and from other discussions I've seen, I suspect it isn't as slam dunk as you may fear.

• There's a discussion over on ENWorld were a number of lawyers with experience in IP/Contract law are really tearing into things. I've learned more about contract law than I'd ever suspect just from reading the discussions. One in particular ('bmcdaniel') posts are pure gold (starting on page 8 ), and took a lot of the nightmare scenarios out of my head. Of course any lawsuit is a knife-fight, and trying to pre-guess the outcome is a fools game.
• There are plenty of other countries where WoTC's tactics of nuclear lawfare simply won't work. A number of English lawyers are quite convinced of this, and I'd suspect a lot of EU countries have similar laws. Not sure about the Australians or other countries though.
• While a bit of a superman scenario, it isn't impossible that the EFF wouldn't get interested/consulted in this. They are quite competent, as shown by wins against much larger corporations and governments (Oracle, Viacom,etc.)
• I have no doubt the larger companies have "break in case of WoTC emergency" plans in place.  The larger ones certainly have good legal advice, and have probably Table-Topped/War Gamed this kind of scenario out.  Furthermore, I have no trouble believing that Paizo was well aware of OGL weaknesses, as shown by a Reddit post (about a year ago) from a Design Manger of PF2E. The post was quite clear that Paizo had discussions about dropping the OGL when PF2E came out. I don't see how those kind of discussions would happen if they thought the OGL was comfortably safe and secure.

I just hope this was a trial balloon, and WoTC/Hasbro now tries to pass it off as a simple misunderstanding.  That said, there is no way WoTC/Hasbro wasn't aware of the implications and impact on the gaming community of just the hint of such an action. I've heard all non-OGL licenses are now being re-evaluated (such as Monte Cooks) in light of recent events.

Keep your chin up, it may not be all doom and gloom. 

Quote from: Effete on January 08, 2023, 03:48:00 AM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:30:26 PM
That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.

Which is why any lawsuit stemming from this also needs to challenge Hasbro/WotC's interpretation of the term "authorized" as it appears in Clause #9 of the OGL 1.0a. As one of the original authors, Ryan Dancey's testimony would be invaluable.

That's key.

Mandatory disclaimer: I'm not a contract lawyer, and nothing I say is intended as legal advice.

However, I did go to law school. The intent of a documents does matter in law, especially as regards contracts. Having the original drafter's testimony as to the intent of the language could be fatal to WOTC's case. On top of that, there might be an argument to be made from the principle of estoppel (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/estoppel.asp). WOTC has been behaving as if the license was permanent and irrevocable for 20 years, and a lot of people have made very expensive investments based on that behavior. A court could make a judgment in equity that they can't now reverse course on that decision.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 08, 2023, 01:37:48 PM
I care about being credited for my work.

If me granting you free use of the fruits of my labors in exchange for the simple act putting a line giving me credit for my work isn't generous enough for you then you can rightly fuck off.

You care. So use the cc then. You don't have to be rude about it. There are lots of share software that ask for credit nicely without a license demanding it.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 08, 2023, 03:04:38 PM

Quote from: Effete on January 08, 2023, 03:48:00 AM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:30:26 PM
That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.

Which is why any lawsuit stemming from this also needs to challenge Hasbro/WotC's interpretation of the term "authorized" as it appears in Clause #9 of the OGL 1.0a. As one of the original authors, Ryan Dancey's testimony would be invaluable.

That's key.

Mandatory disclaimer: I'm not a contract lawyer, and nothing I say is intended as legal advice.

However, I did go to law school. The intent of a documents does matter in law, especially as regards contracts. Having the original drafter's testimony as to the intent of the language could be fatal to WOTC's case. On top of that, there might be an argument to be made from the principle of estoppel (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/estoppel.asp). WOTC has been behaving as if the license was permanent and irrevocable for 20 years, and a lot of people have made very expensive investments based on that behavior. A court could make a judgment in equity that they can't now reverse course on that decision.

Well, unles this goes to court and it's settled against Hasbro's decision, the intelligent course of action is to divest your stuff from ALL WotC IP.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 03:24:25 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 08, 2023, 01:37:48 PM
I care about being credited for my work.

If me granting you free use of the fruits of my labors in exchange for the simple act putting a line giving me credit for my work isn't generous enough for you then you can rightly fuck off.

You care. So use the cc then. You don't have to be rude about it. There are lots of share software that ask for credit nicely without a license demanding it.

So, how is you wanting my stuff distributed in public domain without a credit requirement (just a pretty please no one has to abide by) any different than the demand of the new OGL 1.1 that you grant WotC a perpetual irrevocable world-wide royalty free license to use all your work without even crediting you for it?

I considered your ask to be extremely rude and entitled and responded appropriately.

My question literally started with "If you didn't actually care about credit " and it was not addressed to you personally so your reaction seems a bit over the top.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 04:56:09 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 08, 2023, 03:04:38 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:30:26 PM
That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.

Which is why any lawsuit stemming from this also needs to challenge Hasbro/WotC's interpretation of the term "authorized" as it appears in Clause #9 of the OGL 1.0a. As one of the original authors, Ryan Dancey's testimony would be invaluable.

That's key.

Mandatory disclaimer: I'm not a contract lawyer, and nothing I say is intended as legal advice.

However, I did go to law school. The intent of a documents does matter in law, especially as regards contracts. Having the original drafter's testimony as to the intent of the language could be fatal to WOTC's case. On top of that, there might be an argument to be made from the principle of estoppel (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/estoppel.asp). WOTC has been behaving as if the license was permanent and irrevocable for 20 years, and a lot of people have made very expensive investments based on that behavior. A court could make a judgment in equity that they can't now reverse course on that decision.

Well, unles this goes to court and it's settled against Hasbro's decision, the intelligent course of action is to divest your stuff from ALL WotC IP.
[/quote]

I would agree with that, contingent on what your product is and what it turns out is actually encompassed by Wizards IP. Like you say, we can theory-craft about it all day, but until it gets into court, we probably won't know what is and is not safe. Personally, I haven't published my own game, and if I did, it has next to nothing to do with D&D, so I don't think I'd even bother with the OGL.

However, if I was one of the many OSR publishers concerned about this, I'd be taking a serious look at what exactly I'd have to excise from my game to be 100% safe. I expect we will see slight redactions and language tweaks in a lot of new printings of OSR games, from people hedging their bets, and I think a lot of people would be wise to consider removing the OGL from their products, but if I ran a company that published OSR games, I wouldn't set about gutting my game until I start seeing some legal decisions handed down.

....

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 08, 2023, 05:46:05 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 04:56:09 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 08, 2023, 03:04:38 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:30:26 PM
That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.

Which is why any lawsuit stemming from this also needs to challenge Hasbro/WotC's interpretation of the term "authorized" as it appears in Clause #9 of the OGL 1.0a. As one of the original authors, Ryan Dancey's testimony would be invaluable.

That's key.

Mandatory disclaimer: I'm not a contract lawyer, and nothing I say is intended as legal advice.

However, I did go to law school. The intent of a documents does matter in law, especially as regards contracts. Having the original drafter's testimony as to the intent of the language could be fatal to WOTC's case. On top of that, there might be an argument to be made from the principle of estoppel (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/estoppel.asp). WOTC has been behaving as if the license was permanent and irrevocable for 20 years, and a lot of people have made very expensive investments based on that behavior. A court could make a judgment in equity that they can't now reverse course on that decision.

Well, unles this goes to court and it's settled against Hasbro's decision, the intelligent course of action is to divest your stuff from ALL WotC IP.

I would agree with that, contingent on what your product is and what it turns out is actually encompassed by Wizards IP. Like you say, we can theory-craft about it all day, but until it gets into court, we probably won't know what is and is not safe. Personally, I haven't published my own game, and if I did, it has next to nothing to do with D&D, so I don't think I'd even bother with the OGL.

However, if I was one of the many OSR publishers concerned about this, I'd be taking a serious look at what exactly I'd have to excise from my game to be 100% safe. I expect we will see slight redactions and language tweaks in a lot of new printings of OSR games, from people hedging their bets, and I think a lot of people would be wise to consider removing the OGL from their products, but if I ran a company that published OSR games, I wouldn't set about gutting my game until I start seeing some legal decisions handed down.
[/quote]

Waiting to see what the evil corp will do isn't the smart move. The smart move is to protect your bussiness from them.

Someone pointed out an interesting bit.

Tabletop RPGs aren't the only thing that uses OGL. Some video game adaptations do as well.

Including Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.

Go ahead, WotC. Poke the fucking Mouse. I fucking dare you.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 05:05:31 PM
My question literally started with "If you didn't actually care about credit " and it was not addressed to you personally so your reaction seems a bit over the top.

Perhaps I misread your intent, because for me our conversation began with...

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 06:43:25 PM
What advantage does Creative Commons have versus just having an SRD without art and declaring it Public Domain?

To which I replied...

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 07:31:27 PM
Creative Commons license means you have to actually say you used my work as part of your own when making your own products off it.

Basically, I did a lot of work and I'm offering to give it away with a perpetual irrevocable royalty-free license. The least you can do is include a line of text on your credits page saying "includes material produced by Christopher D. Johnson of Siege Engine Games under terms of the Creative Commons License."

If that's too much to ask then I shouldn't be releasing it at all.

And in response you said...

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2023, 01:13:35 PM
If you didn't actually care about credit Public domain seems better. Anyone can use it for anything without worrying about mixing and matching licenses. If someone mixes questionable content into their product that is their problem, not mine.

Which, to me, implied that regardless of my reason for wanting a Creative Commons license that I should give away even the right to credit for my work because that would be better for you.

Do you see how that sequence could be construed as rude and entitled?

If that was not your intent, I apologize for jumping to conclusions.