Quote from: ponta1010 on January 15, 2023, 04:58:56 AM

Quote from: S'mon on January 15, 2023, 03:09:50 AM
Certainly if ORC has a morality clause, it won't be an open licence.

Have I misunderstood what the license is meant to do?

I'd assume it may have a morality clause, so that the licensor is allowed to inhibit production by the licensee.

Thus in Chris24601's case, he releases a system under ORC that allow others to use it, but as he's the licensor he can decide whether his Christian setting is reasonable or not. If someone else uses his system to create something he considers blasphemous then he can invoke that clause to stop that person from using his system!?

That's NOT an open license then.

Quote from: swzl on January 15, 2023, 08:35:10 AM
Chris24601 wrote:
"* I don't find the CC-licenses particularly useful for my purposes as they're much more about pure copyleft and less about building a mutually profitable relationship with third parties."

Could you expand on this. I am thinking about licensing as I scrub OGL content from my stuff. If you put a statement in the licensing section that says,"All proper nouns, names, story lines, art, and trade dress are copyright My Name 2023. All game mechanic text is CC 4.0 BY AT"

Does this not have the same effect as separating content into Open Content and Product Identity? If not how so?

It does, per CC's own wiki:

"Specify precisely what it is you are licensing.

Any given work has multiple elements; e.g., text, images, music. Make sure to clearly mark or indicate in a notice which of those are covered by the license."

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees#Considerations_for_licensors

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 08:50:42 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 03:05:30 AM* I don't find the CC-licenses particularly useful for my purposes as they're much more about pure copyleft and less about building a mutually profitable relationship with third parties.

Yeah... In my experience, the CC licenses only barely/kinda/not really work for a lot of the stuff they're used for already. There's actually a lot of stuff either published under a CC license or using CC-licensed content that really don't do it right, but often times people just kind of ignore it.

People don't bother reading the wiki and therefore they don't use the license properly, ergo the license doesn't work...

I'm sorry, WHAT!?

It's not a trap, but a savvy move by #Paizo to make sales.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 08:50:42 AM
In my experience, the CC licenses only barely/kinda/not really work for a lot of the stuff they're used for already. There's actually a lot of stuff either published under a CC license or using CC-licensed content that really don't do it right, but often times people just kind of ignore it.

Such as?

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 11:19:29 AM
The big one for me is the CC's are "non-sublicensable" meaning if a third party came up with, say, a "Boiling Sea" setting and wanted to allow others to make adventures for it, they can't include any of my material in their own license grant... adding an extra layer of complexity (they have to also include my license in addition to the Boiling Sea license) and possible unintended copyright infringement for someone who just wanted to make a cool adventure for the "Boiling Sea" setting.

Despite use of the term the OGL didn't allow for 'sublicensing' either. All rights were granted by and between contributors. Under the CC a third party can include any of your material simply by attributing you, which they'd have to do with the OGL by including declarations of what you consider to be Open Game Content and Product Identity anyway.

The OGL is far more confounding in that it's actually two separate licenses in one.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 11:19:29 AMI'll admit I also don't particularly mind the "cannot indicate compatibility" clause of the OGL1.0a... or at least a variation on it (particularly in association with a secondary license).

Good, because this was the primary purpose of the OGL. Taking your right to claim compatibility away was fundamental to building the #D20 ecosystem.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 11:19:29 AMif I released under SA, then anyone who used my material would have to release anything they created as SA... basically meaning they have to let anyone take the work they produced and use it without compensation if they used my SA work as a part of it.

No shit. But the only requirement which exists throughout is attribution. Have you actually read the licenses?

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 15, 2023, 10:32:51 AM
The whole purpose of an open license is to insure people that they won't be sued if they create 3rd party content for a game. But the only company that has a history of being sue-happy is WotC.

Any Open Gaming License that doesn't use Hasbro owned property is pointless as it is protecting people from an outcome that was never going to happen.

How does WOTC have a history of being sue happy? TSR did, but not WOTC. They've sued very few, and usually only when they were sued first.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 11:52:29 AM

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 08:50:42 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 03:05:30 AM* I don't find the CC-licenses particularly useful for my purposes as they're much more about pure copyleft and less about building a mutually profitable relationship with third parties.

Yeah... In my experience, the CC licenses only barely/kinda/not really work for a lot of the stuff they're used for already. There's actually a lot of stuff either published under a CC license or using CC-licensed content that really don't do it right, but often times people just kind of ignore it.

People don't bother reading the wiki and therefore they don't use the license properly, ergo the license doesn't work...

I'm sorry, WHAT!?

We've had this conversation plenty of times. Not everyone is required to agree with your assessments about the CC nor with your opinion that that no one should be entitled to intellectual property rights.

Frankly, the CC was established by people every bit as left wing as Paizo are. One even ran for President as a Democrat and wants to abolish both the electoral college system (so the big blue cities can rule the vast rural red countryside forever), the ability of private citizens to contribute to political candidates (so the leftwing corporate media alone determine who gets any coverage) and for an Article V convention where activists can just strip out the whole Bill of Rights in the name of whatever brand of leftwing politics they favor.

They're the type of utopian socialists who believe if everyone just gave everything away the world would be a paradise, except every time that's tried it turns into a hellhole. Why should I support their licenses any more than I should ORC or the OGL?

Answer: the utility of their particular license to my purposes. Elsewise, I should pursue my own bespoke license that can accomplish my purposes.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 12:31:03 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 11:52:29 AM

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 08:50:42 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 03:05:30 AM* I don't find the CC-licenses particularly useful for my purposes as they're much more about pure copyleft and less about building a mutually profitable relationship with third parties.

Yeah... In my experience, the CC licenses only barely/kinda/not really work for a lot of the stuff they're used for already. There's actually a lot of stuff either published under a CC license or using CC-licensed content that really don't do it right, but often times people just kind of ignore it.

People don't bother reading the wiki and therefore they don't use the license properly, ergo the license doesn't work...

I'm sorry, WHAT!?

We've had this conversation plenty of times. Not everyone is required to agree with your assessments about the CC nor with your opinion that that no one should be entitled to intellectual property rights.

Frankly, the CC was established by people every bit as left wing as Paizo are. One even ran for President as a Democrat and wants to abolish both the electoral college system (so the big blue cities can rule the vast rural red countryside forever), the ability of private citizens to contribute to political candidates (so the leftwing corporate media alone determine who gets any coverage) and for an Article V convention where activists can just strip out the whole Bill of Rights in the name of whatever brand of leftwing politics they favor.

They're the type of utopian socialists who believe if everyone just gave everything away the world would be a paradise, except every time that's tried it turns into a hellhole. Why should I support their licenses any more than I should ORC or the OGL?

Answer: the utility of their particular license to my purposes. Elsewise, I should pursue my own bespoke license that can accomplish my purposes.

Indeed we have, which is why I'm not answering to you. You might have noticed that small detail. I'm answering to SOMEONE ELSE.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 11:52:29 AM
People don't bother reading the wiki and therefore they don't use the license properly, ergo the license doesn't work...

I'm sorry, WHAT!?

*facepalm*

That's not my argument. My argument is that there's this sort of reflexive... reflex... among some people to, whenever the subject of licensing comes up, for people to quickly suggest "Use a CC license!". Sometimes going so far as to pressure people into using them as opposed to some other form of license. Even in situations where a CC license is not the ideal sort of license for the situation in question. There's a... lets say cult of ideology that pushes CC licenses.

I mean, yeah, there's a lot of people who don't use the licenses right, but the fact that people are pushed to use licenses that aren't really what they should be using and aren't properly explained to them is part of the problem. Yes, people should educate themselves better before using licenses - but also, CC licenses aren't perfect, aren't always the best solution, and certainly aren't a goal unto themselves like some people seem to treat them.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 15, 2023, 12:12:43 PM
It's not a trap, but a savvy move by #Paizo to make sales.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 08:50:42 AM
In my experience, the CC licenses only barely/kinda/not really work for a lot of the stuff they're used for already. There's actually a lot of stuff either published under a CC license or using CC-licensed content that really don't do it right, but often times people just kind of ignore it.

Such as?

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 11:19:29 AM
The big one for me is the CC's are "non-sublicensable" meaning if a third party came up with, say, a "Boiling Sea" setting and wanted to allow others to make adventures for it, they can't include any of my material in their own license grant... adding an extra layer of complexity (they have to also include my license in addition to the Boiling Sea license) and possible unintended copyright infringement for someone who just wanted to make a cool adventure for the "Boiling Sea" setting.

Despite use of the term the OGL didn't allow for 'sublicensing' either. All rights were granted by and between contributors. Under the CC a third party can include any of your material simply by attributing you, which they'd have to do with the OGL by including declarations of what you consider to be Open Game Content and Product Identity anyway.

The OGL is far more confounding in that it's actually two separate licenses in one.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 11:19:29 AMI'll admit I also don't particularly mind the "cannot indicate compatibility" clause of the OGL1.0a... or at least a variation on it (particularly in association with a secondary license).

Good, because this was the primary purpose of the OGL. Taking your right to claim compatibility away was fundamental to building the #D20 ecosystem.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 11:19:29 AMif I released under SA, then anyone who used my material would have to release anything they created as SA... basically meaning they have to let anyone take the work they produced and use it without compensation if they used my SA work as a part of it.

No shit. But the only requirement which exists throughout is attribution. Have you actually read the licenses?

As for the last part not really, any derivative work has to be released under the same license, but not all of my work has to be released under it, because it allows for specifying which parts of a work ARE under the license. So my IP is safe because I declare it not under the license.

Whatever else I put under it I DON'T want Wankers on the Beach to come take it and close it.

It's the difference between the GNU license and the FreeBSD one. The first requires the code to remain open, the second doesn't. Along comes Crapple, takes the code, lots of community contributions and then puff, closses it leaving only a stump behind, lo and behold! OS X is born!

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 12:51:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 11:52:29 AM
People don't bother reading the wiki and therefore they don't use the license properly, ergo the license doesn't work...

I'm sorry, WHAT!?

*facepalm*

That's not my argument. My argument is that there's this sort of reflexive... reflex... among some people to, whenever the subject of licensing comes up, for people to quickly suggest "Use a CC license!". Sometimes going so far as to pressure people into using them as opposed to some other form of license. Even in situations where a CC license is not the ideal sort of license for the situation in question. There's a... lets say cult of ideology that pushes CC licenses.

I mean, yeah, there's a lot of people who don't use the licenses right, but the fact that people are pushed to use licenses that aren't really what they should be using and aren't properly explained to them is part of the problem. Yes, people should educate themselves better before using licenses - but also, CC licenses aren't perfect, aren't always the best solution, and certainly aren't a goal unto themselves like some people seem to treat them.

Dude, you can use whatever license you want, IDGAFF, but I have made my research, so don't say that you can't do X when I know that you totally can't.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 12:56:01 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 12:51:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 11:52:29 AM
People don't bother reading the wiki and therefore they don't use the license properly, ergo the license doesn't work...

I'm sorry, WHAT!?

*facepalm*

That's not my argument. My argument is that there's this sort of reflexive... reflex... among some people to, whenever the subject of licensing comes up, for people to quickly suggest "Use a CC license!". Sometimes going so far as to pressure people into using them as opposed to some other form of license. Even in situations where a CC license is not the ideal sort of license for the situation in question. There's a... lets say cult of ideology that pushes CC licenses.

I mean, yeah, there's a lot of people who don't use the licenses right, but the fact that people are pushed to use licenses that aren't really what they should be using and aren't properly explained to them is part of the problem. Yes, people should educate themselves better before using licenses - but also, CC licenses aren't perfect, aren't always the best solution, and certainly aren't a goal unto themselves like some people seem to treat them.

Dude, you can use whatever license you want, IDGAFF, but I have made my research, so don't say that you can't do X when I know that you totally can't.

I... never said a person couldn't do something.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 12:57:26 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 12:56:01 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 12:51:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 11:52:29 AM
People don't bother reading the wiki and therefore they don't use the license properly, ergo the license doesn't work...

I'm sorry, WHAT!?

*facepalm*

That's not my argument. My argument is that there's this sort of reflexive... reflex... among some people to, whenever the subject of licensing comes up, for people to quickly suggest "Use a CC license!". Sometimes going so far as to pressure people into using them as opposed to some other form of license. Even in situations where a CC license is not the ideal sort of license for the situation in question. There's a... lets say cult of ideology that pushes CC licenses.

I mean, yeah, there's a lot of people who don't use the licenses right, but the fact that people are pushed to use licenses that aren't really what they should be using and aren't properly explained to them is part of the problem. Yes, people should educate themselves better before using licenses - but also, CC licenses aren't perfect, aren't always the best solution, and certainly aren't a goal unto themselves like some people seem to treat them.

Dude, you can use whatever license you want, IDGAFF, but I have made my research, so don't say that you can't do X when I know that you totally can't.

I... never said a person couldn't do something.

That's a fine distinction, yes, you didn't say A PERSON couldn't do something, but you did say the licenses kinda doesn't work.

So, again, they do work for what they are intended IF you bother to read BEFORE using them.

Saying the licenses don't work is the same as saying you can't separate IP from open content in a way, and you totally can.

But again, you use whatever license you want boo, you can even use the not open OGL2.0 and I won't give a damn.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 01:03:34 PM
That's a fine distinction, yes, you didn't say A PERSON couldn't do something, but you did say the licenses kinda doesn't work.

I didn't say they don't work. I said they don't work for everything. Hell, if you get right down to it, I didn't even say they don't work, I said they "barely/kinda/not really" work for "a lot of the stuff they're used for already".

Now, that's about the mildest criticism I think I could possibility express and still have it even be considered a criticism, and it wasn't targeted at any specific person or thing, so I don't have a clue why you're being so hostile to me over it.

For me no matter the license it's the huge assumption on the part of players and DMs that many will make the switch simply to stick it to Wotc and D&D in large amounts.

Yes I know subscribers left Beyond except gamers are both notoriously cheap and resistant to change.

Sorry but if I'm running 5E or another rpg and you hate what Wotc has done then fine. You want to switch to P2E or something else. Then the players who want to change are buying the core, bestiary and screen with their own money and give it to me free of charge. Or you can keep posting the current rpg or find another table. Sorry I don't have the money 100+$ for a new rpg or the will to learn a new rpg.

Same thing as a player. You want to switch to PF2E you can buy me and the other players the new core book as I ain't. If not I leave  and find a new table.

Too many choices made by emotion and not enough clear thinking. Same thing with selling 5E products. You're mad at Wotc for what they did get you want to sell me your books only 5-10$ cheaper. Yeah no I will buy it from Amazon.

Quote from: Abraxus on January 15, 2023, 01:16:10 PM
For me no matter the license it's the huge assumption on the part of players and DMs that many will make the switch simply to stick it to Wotc and D&D in large amounts.

Yes I know subscribers left Beyond except gamers are both notoriously cheap and resistant to change.

Sorry but if I'm running 5E or another rpg and you hate what Wotc has done then fine. You want to switch to P2E or something else. Then the players who want to change are buying the core, bestiary and screen with their own money and give it to me free of charge. Or you can keep posting the current rpg or find another table. Sorry I don't have the money 100+$ for a new rpg or the will to learn a new rpg.

Same thing as a player. You want to switch to PF2E you can buy me and the other players the new core book as I ain't. If not I leave  and find a new table.

Too many choices made by emotion and not enough clear thinking. Same thing with selling 5E products. You're mad at Wotc for what they did get you want to sell me your books only 5-10$ cheaper. Yeah no I will buy it from Amazon.

Look, realistically, nobody but the most rah-rah OSR optimists thinks that this is going to be some death knell for WotC and D&D vanishes in the next year or two and the gaming community blooms into a utopia of indie RPG players... We know that a lot of players aren't going to switch, we know some GMs won't switch, yadda yadda.

But on the other hand, "lawl, everyone is a sheepish cheap bastard, you can't change anything, nobody will ever leave the WotC garden" is... not a lot better.

While obviously it's a lot more complicated than this, you can sort of broadly put gamers into two categories:

• The "I play <brand>!" gamers. To these players, the hobby IS the game they play. Most of these players are D&D players, but there are some exceptions - there used to be a lot of World of Darkness players like this, for example. There are probably some Pathfinder players like this. I know there are a haaaandful of Shadowrun players like this, and so on. But yes, we can concede these are mostly D&D players right now.
• The "I play RPGs!" type of gamers. These gamers may have a strong preference for a single game, and again, I'll concede that it's probably D&D for a lot of them, but for these people, they already have other options.

The first group? Yeah. Realistically, we were neeeever going to get more than a tiny handful of them to switch away from D&D. We're not really talking about those people to begin with. We're talking about the second group. The million dollar question, of course, is what the ratio of the two groups is.