What is the purpose of the Open RPG Creative license?

[Altaica]

I don't know of any formal definitions of 'Open' other the the one when they coined the term "Open Source"

most people think of 'open' as in "Open Source" even though they don't know what that is.

1: Free Redistribution

"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

2: this is just that is have to be the source that is open so won't repeat it.

3: Derived Works

"The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."

4: Integrity of The Author’s Source Code

"The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of “patch files” with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software."

5: No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

"The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."

6: No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

"The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research"

7: Distribution of License

"The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties."

8: License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

"The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program’s being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program’s license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution."

9: License Must Not Restrict Other Software

"The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software."

10: License Must Be Technology-Neutral

"No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface."

The creative Commons is good enough for WoTC so what problems with CC does the ORC license hope to fix?

[Dancing Wind]

First of all, "the creative Commons" is actually 6 different licensing contracts. WOTC chose “CC-BY-4.0" which does not include several of the restrictions that you mentioned in your post.

The other thing to note is that WOTC only put their old rules under the CC license. None of their new material will be available under that license.

WOTC is not allowing their new material to be freely licensed. You'll have to negotiate a separate licensing agreement with them if you want to use any of their new stuff.

The ORC will allow people to publish new material with protections similar to the old OGL. So, if publishers want to use PF2 material from Paizo and other ORC publishers, then they won't have to negotiate with anyone: the ORC license will already be available to them. It's an open license on future material, not just old, out-of-date material.

If Paizo released PF1 under a Creative Commons license, but said no one could publish anything that uses PF2 material without a legal contract separately negotiated with the licensing attorneys, it would be like what WOTC has done.

You've been fooled by WOTC's marketing hype.

Here's some FAQs about what is actually available

V5.1 SRD FAQs:

SRD 5.1 FAQ

Why does the SRD only have one background and one feat? Why do the PC races not include all of the subraces? The goal of the SRD is to allow users to create new content, not to replicate the text of the whole game. We encourage players, DMs, and publishers to come up with their own backgrounds and feats.

Why is the SRD missing some spells, magic items, and monsters? In general, the criteria for what went into the SRD is if it (1) was in the 3E SRD, (2) has an equivalent in 5th edition D&D, and (3) is vital to how a class, magic item, or monster works. For example, the 3E SRD has the delay poison spell, but in 5th edition that's handled by the protection from poison spell, so protection from poison is in the SRD.

[Altaica]

Dancing Wind wrote:

First of all, "the creative Commons" is actually 6 different licensing contracts. WOTC chose “CC-BY-4.0" which does not include several of the restrictions that you mentioned in your post.

yes. the CC-By-4.0 DOES NOT INCLUDE the restrictions, that's why it's open.

For those confused. 'open' forbids certain restrictions.

Dancing Wind wrote:

If Paizo released PF1 under a Creative Commons license, but said no one could publish anything that uses PF2 material without a legal contract separately negotiated with the licensing attorneys, it would be like what WOTC has done.

Now I don't really follow DnD but as far as I know 5e is still the current edition and WoTC is still claiming they are not developing a new edition. While PF2 is like 3 years old.

Dancing Wind wrote:

It's an open license on future material, not just old, out-of-date material.

It's not 'open' and not 'viral' for isn't going to effect future material.

I was heavy into 3E I know that people are going to claim everything, except what they include from the SRD-equivalent, as what ever the equivalent of Product Identity is.

"You can't use reason to convince anyone out of an argument that they didn't use reason to get into." - Neil deGrasse.
and I don't have to time to by crazy with you so ff no one can tell who Garf***d G***s is I'm not going to respond. If you're studied why TPP needed the OGL in the first place and why WoTC needed the OGL in the second.

[Rysky]

Someone woke up and stepped on a d4, why the hostility? Why so affronted over Creative Commons?

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

The OP has some history at failing to communicate with other life forms.

[Steve Geddes]

Altaica wrote:

Now I don't really follow DnD but as far as I know 5e is still the current edition and WoTC is still claiming they are not developing a new edition.

They’re not claiming that. They’re actively working on a new iteration/edition/version/revision/….whatever.

If you don’t really follow D&D, I’d caution against relying on “as far as I know”.

[Marc Radle]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

The OP has some history at failing to communicate with other life forms.

Also of interest, this seems to be the OP’s first post since 2019 …

[WatersLethe]

Creators: "WotC destroyed community faith in a license we have all enjoyed publishing under, and would otherwise love to continue to publish under. We're making a version of that license that we can have faith in to continue publishing as we are comfortable with, and have been for decades."

WotC: "Yeah, we pulled the trigger trying to destroy thousands of creator's livelihoods, but we missed, so as an apology we're going to be putting all our old content on a totally different license we have no control over and none of you have been publishing under for various valid reasons. This is our random-bullspit-go maneuver and we hope it works. Oh, going forward with D&D? Yeah you're going to be using our license."

Altaica: "Why isn't everyone dropping everything they're used to in order to chase the ball WotC just threw?!?! Go fetch now!!!"

[Charlie Brooks]

Off the top of my head and embracing the question in good faith, does Creative Commons allow you to designate only part of a product as open? I don't believe it does, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

One of the nice things with the OGL, and hopefully with ORC, is the ability to designate part of a book as open while still protecting certain items as exclusive to your brand. If Creative Commons does not have this, that is a big reason to want to publish under a different open license.

[Dancing Wind]

Charlie Brooks wrote:

does Creative Commons allow you to designate only part of a product as open?

No, it does not. The license applies to the entire "work" (as used in copyright law).

[thejeff]

Dancing Wind wrote:

Charlie Brooks wrote:

does Creative Commons allow you to designate only part of a product as open?

No, it does not. The license applies to the entire "work" (as used in copyright law).

Which means a company like Paizo would have to either completely segregate all setting material into different publications than rules material or release all setting material along with their rule material.

Which isn't really optimal for an RPG company.

[Fumarole]

Marc Radle wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

The OP has some history at failing to communicate with other life forms.

Also of interest, this seems to be the OP’s first post since 2019 …

First non-deleted post, at least.

[Marc Radle]

Fumarole wrote:

Marc Radle wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

The OP has some history at failing to communicate with other life forms.

Also of interest, this seems to be the OP’s first post since 2019 …

First non-deleted post, at least.

Ah - good point!

[Noven]

I tend to think of the ORC as something of a buffet. Multiple publishers are going to publish their rules and content under the ORC, and we players/designers/game masters get to pick what we like from the buffet.

"A pinch of Starfinder, a cup of Pathfinder, maybe some <insert other publisher>. Add in my own flair and BAM! Creative and new product!"

[David knott 242]

And it is a buffet that hasn't opened yet. Its value will depend on who publishes things under it, as well as how well they protect the license from being maintained by bad actors.

The OGL 1.0a is also a great buffet that is already open and has a great selection available, but its landlord turned nasty once and may do so again at some future date. But it may be the only choice if you wish to use open game content from a publisher who is no longer in business to switch over to the newer establishment.