Topic: Sell me on a method: Creative Commons or OGL for a Pace SRD
Started by: iago
Started on: 9/3/2004
Board: Evilhat Productions
On 9/3/2004 at 4:14pm, iago wrote:
Sell me on a method: Creative Commons or OGL for a Pace SRD
We have plans for releasing Fate under an OGL license, hopefully on the heels of Fudge itself getting OGL'ed (an announcement was made some time back, but Grey Ghost has not been hauling ass, as it were). In order to play well with Fudge down the road, that pretty solidly puts us on the OGL path there.
That said, I'd like to get the text of some of the smaller stuff (Pace, Texorami) officially released under an OGL or Creative Commons license (attribution, perhaps, or "sampling" -- I'm still not sure which is most appropriate for RPG distro).
So I put this out to the Forge folk: Got a preference? If so, sell me on it!
On 9/3/2004 at 6:12pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Sell me on a method: Creative Commons or OGL for a Pace SRD
Too little info, I think. I mean, what's this going to look like? Are we talking simply FATE applied to what's otherwise D&D? Or will it still be more generic? Like an alternate D20?
I mean, I'm not even visualizing the basic outcome product, so it's hard to say what license will be best for it.
Mike
On 9/3/2004 at 7:26pm, iago wrote:
RE: Sell me on a method: Creative Commons or OGL for a Pace SRD
Mike Holmes wrote: Too little info, I think. I mean, what's this going to look like? Are we talking simply FATE applied to what's otherwise D&D? Or will it still be more generic? Like an alternate D20?
I mean, I'm not even visualizing the basic outcome product, so it's hard to say what license will be best for it.
Actually, you're mixing things up a bit. :)
OGL does not imply d20. Fudge is going to be Fudge, AFAIK, released using licensing text of the OGL license. That doesn't make it a d20 based at all, that just makes it open content. Fate won't change, it just heads in the direction of being open content under the terms of the same license.
But all that said, I'm not asking about Fate (because that decision's already somewhat made by circumstance), so much as Pace and Texorami.
I'm specifically interested in the merits of the OGL vs various kinds of Creative Commons licenses available.
On 9/3/2004 at 9:40pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Sell me on a method: Creative Commons or OGL for a Pace SRD
Oops, my mistake. Coulda sworn I saw you mention SRD.
Creative Commons, then. OGL only makes sense, IMO, for stuff that's heading for D20. That's based on what I learned from JB Bell, however, so if you can get him to explain, he'd do a much better job. Heck he even invoked GNU in discussing what to do with our collaboration, Synthesis.
Mike
On 9/3/2004 at 9:53pm, iago wrote:
RE: Sell me on a method: Creative Commons or OGL for a Pace SRD
Mike Holmes wrote: Oops, my mistake. Coulda sworn I saw you mention SRD.Ah, yes. I meant I intend to create a text-only system reference document for the systems I'd be releasing.
Creative Commons, then. OGL only makes sense, IMO, for stuff that's heading for D20. That's based on what I learned from JB Bell, however, so if you can get him to explain, he'd do a much better job. Heck he even invoked GNU in discussing what to do with our collaboration, Synthesis.
Interesting. Thanks!
On 9/15/2004 at 6:24pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Sell me on a method: Creative Commons or OGL for a Pace SRD
C'mon, folks. I can't be the only person who has an opinion on this. Someone else chime in.
That said, I'm sure there's some posts on this sort of thing in the Publishing forum, Fred.
Mike
On 9/15/2004 at 6:35pm, iago wrote:
RE: Sell me on a method: Creative Commons or OGL for a Pace SRD
Mike Holmes wrote: C'mon, folks. I can't be the only person who has an opinion on this. Someone else chime in.
That said, I'm sure there's some posts on this sort of thing in the Publishing forum, Fred.
Yep -- I mean to go on a hunt for those once I sit down and get all official on it. :)
On 9/15/2004 at 7:02pm, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
RE: Sell me on a method: Creative Commons or OGL for a Pace SRD
Well, it's a pretty straightforward matter - most righ-thinking, cultured beings do not look too well on not being able to do normal references to anything at all in their own book. I direct you to article seven of OGL:
OGL wrote: Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
Wherein the relevant definition of Product Identity:
""Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts;..." (a long list of examples) "... and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content."
The interesting thing here being that nowhere is it stated that this applies only to Contributors (that is, people who publish under OGL). To the contrary, the text seems to create an extremely widespread blanket that applies to any work at all, including in principle anything that is not Open Game Content. The latter part seems to mean that specifically any trademarks can be protected simply by identifying them as Product Identity.
What does it mean? It means that if you write a horror game and want to mention Stephen King's works as references, you need written permission from him to mention them. Arguably you'd need the permission to mention Stephen King, as his name itself is a clear case of Product Identity. More generally, creating a bibliography is impossible, as well as quoting with correct attribution, without asking for permission every single time. Even giving credit for influence is not allowed. An OGL contributor relinquishes some pretty fundamental rights and duties to civilized society, as he has to do all intertextual reference in a non-explicit way, without confessing to his sources.
Of course, I'm no lawyer, and I'm not American to boot, so it might be that I fumble my common English skill by this interpretation. Especially as no contract is set in stone without a court decision, and as far as I know there has been no idiotic third-party claims based on self-relinquished right to reference. If a court decides that the OGL licence is too idiotic to uphold, there's not much to be done.
Really, the lack of opinionating here might be because the case is so clear-cut; I find it hard to believe that anyone would have any reason to endorse OGL, apart from gaining access to the material published under it. Of course, if you need to use something that's published under OGL, and don't want to resort to simply changing a few terms here and there, then OGL is the only option. It's also a good move when you want to sell to the D&D crowd. But other than that, almost any licence is better.
I'm sorry if I'm stating the obvious here; I'm pretty sure that this must have been hashed and rehashed a zillion times before.
On 9/21/2004 at 1:59pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Sell me on a method: Creative Commons or OGL for a Pace SRD
Hello,
Another issue, in line with Eero's and Mike's excellent points, is that you're the publisher. The whole point of independence is that our opinions carry no weight. All we can do is add information, and the information on this topic is available to you just as it is to us.
I just typed my opinion on the OGL vs. Creative Commons, but deleted it. Nothing I could say was anything beyond me blowing smoke about what you should do, and it kind of disgusted me once I scanned it.
Best,
Ron
On 9/21/2004 at 2:04pm, iago wrote:
RE: Sell me on a method: Creative Commons or OGL for a Pace SRD
Ron Edwards wrote: Another issue, in line with Eero's and Mike's excellent points, is that you're the publisher. The whole point of independence is that our opinions carry no weight. All we can do is add information, and the information on this topic is available to you just as it is to us.
I just typed my opinion on the OGL vs. Creative Commons, but deleted it. Nothing I could say was anything beyond me blowing smoke about what you should do, and it kind of disgusted me once I scanned it.
Fair point, Ron, though I suspect my vision of what being independent means, includes my option to be circumspect and ambivalent on the topic, and interested in the takes others might have on the topic.
Ultimately I have to disagree rather strongly with your perspective that the "whole point of independence is that [your] opinions carry no weight". If they carried no weight, no amount of interacting with anyone on any topic should have any impact on me whatsoever. That's bull. Independence means that I have the freedom to make whatever decision I want, not that that decision gets to happen in a vacuum free of all advice, and unswayed by any external opinion. Maybe I'm cutting a fine distinction, but it's an important one to me, since I can usually convince myself of either option when given a choice of two.
But this is thread drift. :)