At DriveThruRPG, when I click on Rules System -> OSR, I get a page of product listings separated into categories. The first two categories are:

1. "Hottest Old School Revival (OSR)"
2. "Hottest Community Old School Revival (OSR)"

What's the difference?

Don't quote me, but I think in this case "Community" means fan-made as opposed to official.

https://support.drivethrurpg.com/hc/en-us/articles/210123503-What-are-the-Community-Content-Programs-

Quote from: DTRPGCommunity Content Programs are programs that allow you to create content (adventures and locations; new monsters; character classes, archetypes, and backgrounds; etc.) using the intellectual property (IP) of some of your favorite games and settings... and to make some money while you're at it.

It's a licensing program managed by OBS (parent of DTRPG) for a number of third party publishers.

Thanks!

Quote from: Zalman on March 10, 2022, 04:22:42 PM
At DriveThruRPG, when I click on Rules System -> OSR, I get a page of product listings separated into categories. The first two categories are:

1. "Hottest Old School Revival (OSR)"
2. "Hottest Community Old School Revival (OSR)"

What's the difference?

Community content programs was developed by Onebookshelf to allow a third path for publisher to have third party content. Unlike the open game license, community content can only be published on the Community Content site run on DriveThruRPG. This includes giving up derivative rights like preparing the product for a different system. In exchange, the publisher opens up more of the core products than what has been the case for open content licenses. For example in the DM's Guild an author can use any material from any of the released 5e books as well as material from the Forgotten Realms, Raveloft, and selected other settings (but not Dark Suns, or Greyhawk, yet).

My opinion this is a good deal if it involves something like Forgotten Realms or the Third Imperium as part of the package. While systems have been released as open content, there was never a realistic chance of a setting released as open content.

But for systems this is a very bad deal as it locks not just any rules related material to the program but any original settings or adventures you made make. As stated any content released for these programs has to remain within the program including derivative works. For example if you released the Lost Tower of Avnar in the DM's Guild, you could not turn around and reuse that to make a Lost Tower of Avnar for Old School Essentials even if you released it on your own website.

The fact that Mongoose Traveller decided to make a community content program for Mongoose Traveller 2e caused a split in the Traveller community. With 1e there were a small but thriving group of third party publishers with original settings using the open content and logo that Mongoose released. But after the Traveller's Aid Society was established as a community content program, Jason Kemp combined the Mongoose Traveller 1e open content, with the Traveller20 open content and a little D20 Modern to make Cepheus.

It still a bit of a sore point but it largely a non-issue now. Marc Millar has allowed a Cepheus subforum to be created on the TravellerRPG forums. There is a category on DriveThruRPG. Plus Traveller hobbyists are used to mix and matching multiple editions with very different mechanics. In practice, people who want to make Third Imperium content use the TAS program, people with their own original ideas use Cepheus.

Another incident occurred with Genesys. There the fan community protested the use of the standard community licence and managed to convince Fantasy Flight to make it explicit that people are allowed to publish their original work elsewhere using a different system.

I have personally talked to Daniel Fox of Zweihander and the folks behind the HeroForge (Hero System). While they both use the standard community content license. Neither have any issue with somebody taking their original work and publishing elsewhere using a different system. I also learned through these conversation that enforcement of the license terms is not handled by OBS but the company who established the program.

As for the OSR Community Content program. This is because of Daniel Fox Zweihander RPG. He has classified Zweihander as an OSR system and rather than trying to build it on it's own reputation decided to piggyback it on the OSR Moniker. Which often leaves people scratching their own heads as OSR is known for having a lot of open content for people to reuse.  To date no other publishers using the OSR as a marketing terms has opted to approach OBS for a community content program.

I have been and remain critical of Daniel Fox doing this and he aware of it.

Wow, thanks for the context Rob. That sort of licensing model just makes my skin itch!

Quote from: Zalman on March 11, 2022, 10:09:51 AM
Wow, thanks for the context Rob. That sort of licensing model just makes my skin itch!

Yeah I have major issues with the standard community content license  if it doesn't involve a setting.

With a setting however it about is as good as it going to get for most IP Holders. It one thing to get a IP Holder release a system as open content, it is a lot more difficult to get IP holder to release a setting with all the traditional bells and whistles as open content.

If you have an idea for Glorantha, as long as it involve using the current version of Runequest, you can do the work and post it on the Jonstown Compendium.

While I feel bad for that their original content locked up some of the DM Guild's authors have done quite well. What I would be interested in now that it is a few years old is a survey to see if any of them managed to expand beyond the DM's Guild and do a kickstarter or a independent release.