[od-discuss] Getting the Open Game License accepted under the Open Definition

Wed Oct 9 17:44:46 UTC 2013

A non-lawyer friend who has been following game licensing for a long
time, further background on the Open Game License, forwarded with
permission.

Conclusion:

[quoting OD] “A piece of data or content is open if anyone is free to
use, reuse,
and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to
attribute and/or share-alike.”

I think the OGL was meant to fulfill that, but because it was heavily
applied to the d20 system, it was never applied by itself, so we don't
have a lot of use cases to go on.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: maiki <maiki at interi.org>
Date: Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: Numenera licensing
To: Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>

I see you folks found http://www.earth1066.com/D20FAQ.htm, which has
been a defining document for folks looking to use the OGL.

D&D 3.x was superseded by Pathfinder, which used the OGL to pretty much
take over that version when it was abandoned by WOTC with D&D 4.
Pathfinder is created by Paizo, which additionally has a community use
guideline doc at http://paizo.com/paizo/about/communityuse. It has
caused a lot of discussion, because it is a way for people to take the
OGC and use it for things that the OGL doesn't exactly allow, or at
least that is what folks think. My opinion: it is a lost cause, because
anything created in that scene is tainted, and it doesn't follow any
sane guidelines that I know (like the CC licenses, actually).

Not directly related, but an interesting aside, Kenzer & Company
challenged WOTC when they switched to D&D 4 by releasing a supplement
that was compatible with D&D 4, but didn't have a Gaming System License
(which is not open at all). That step made people question whether
accepting the terms of the OGL were worth the trouble, because there
hadn't been a public example of someone applying nominative use (and I
don't still don't quite understand it myself).

My own opinion is that it is only applicable to very specific cases,
like favoring WOTC's monopoly of the d20 system (which is culture at
this point, since rules be facts and all that). Honestly, like a hard
drive that keeps giving errors, I just gave up on the OGL and replaced
it with a new license(s). BY, BY-SA and 0 for me.

Pathfinder keeps OGL alive, almost single-handed. We are getting big
systems coming out under CC-BY (Dungeon World and Fate Core, for
example), Kickstarted with built-in audiences, so I think it is only a
matter of time that those systems encourage a shift in popular
licenses. Despite how participatory role-playing is, very few people
license anything for commercial use, and the d20 market isn't growing
anymore (according to hobby shop owners and DriveThruRPG annual reports
for the last several years). The nature of the game is that you get a
bunch of books, share it with your group, and then don't invest in the
product line until it is rebooted in 5-25 years.

Dungeon World had a new version of the game released before the
Kickstarter was finished, and Fate Core is the basis of about 4 high
profile Kickstarter campaigns right now, with plenty of others released
in a hobbyist effort, albeit polished, already. The prior version of
Fate was released under the OGL, and had less games based on it than
that in a decade.

CC licenses, for all the kerfuffle we discuss, are pretty easy to
understand compared to the OGL, which was written by Hasbro lawyers,
the makers of toys based on cartoons created to sell toys. No one is
playing that game, so it is a dying legacy.

And wow, sorry for the verbosity. I should blog about this more, I
guess. ^_^

I like building websites, but it is tied for what I would do if money
were no option. I would very much like to publish an RPG setting,
something that incorporates the same things I use websites for, to
highlight and provide commentary on inequality and human nature, but
you know, with magic and stuff.

I thought that I had a chance when I found the OGL so many years ago.
It was like an open invitation to create, but I soon found that
producing a product that was compatible with its terms were difficult,
because nearly every product sold also took on the d20 Trademark
Licence. Everyone was convinced that without that little square logo
you couldn't move books, and at the time they were probably correct (I
can't be sure).

“A piece of data or content is open if anyone is free to use, reuse,
and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to
attribute and/or share-alike.”

I think the OGL was meant to fulfill that, but because it was heavily
applied to the d20 system, it was never applied by itself, so we don't
have a lot of use cases to go on.

maiki

On Tue 08 Oct 2013 10:13:09 PM PDT, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> A little interesting, I appreciate the fair evaluation of the license
> and what it means, even though far from free, not even a public license.
>
> Do you have an opinion on the Open Game License and how it is used?
> See thread at
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-October/thread.html#620
>
> If you feel like/have time for sharing your opinion...
>
> Mile
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:47 PM, maiki <maiki at interi.org
> <mailto:maiki at interi.org>> wrote:
>
>     http://walkingmind.evilhat.com/2013/10/08/numenera-licensing/
>
>     Might interest ya, this is my primary interest in licensing outside of
>     software; role-playing games are inherently participatory and
>     encourage
>     "remix" (referred to throughout history as storytelling). Rob lays out
>     good points on why someone licenses their game, and is also one of the
>     designers of Fate Core, which was Kickstarted and released under
>     CC-BY.
>
>     maiki
>
>