Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Holothuroid t1_j45ewv7 wrote

So why not just use Creative Commons or some such?

14

WedgeSkyrocket t1_j4753ws wrote

It's not the right tool for the job. The original draftees of the OGL discussed using it back then also but wanted a specific, concise, tailor-made license. Many of those individuals are the same ones now making the ORC.

9

james2432 t1_j45obbi wrote

"open, perpetual, and irrevocable"

CC may be open, but the last two would be important for 3rd parties

2

Holothuroid t1_j45p6fw wrote

Creative commons is irrevocable and perpetual.

> Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: [...]

And as for the term:

> This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and Similar Rights licensed here.

Meaning, the CC license ends when the work becomes public domain. Which is a more correct way of saying it's perpetual.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode (same for the other variants)

10

Enchelion t1_j48zybi wrote

Probably because this is better PR for them.

2

[deleted] t1_j481f7a wrote

[deleted]

0

Holothuroid t1_j482udn wrote

You mean like the OGL did before? Because it is totally legal to reprint most of the 3.x core rules and Pathfinder and even take money for it. The OGL is all about copying the SRD verbatim.

If they do what you say, they are going the same way as WotC: Offering a more restrictive license than the OGL before.

Also making expansions, modules and scenarios does not require a license at all.

2