@ami #OpenSource is good, but #ORC is a distraction -- there are already perfectly good licences like #CreativeCommons that are used for many highly rates RPGs such as #Fate, Dungeon World (#PbtA), Blades in the Dark (#FitD), #Gumshoe, #EclipsePhase, and #Ironsworn.
There is no need to waste months and months of development when something already exists that meets their criteria.
@sgryphon @ami interestingly they address that concern in their latest question and answers doc. My read is that they want a copyleft license where only rpg mechanics (not lore/story/product identity) are share-alike, and CC doesn't have a license which facilitates that. E.g. if wotc had published their srd share-alike, then anyone using srd content in their own RPG would need to make THE ENTIRE text of that new RPG share-alike. At least, that's my understanding.
It may also show some bias/damage control by specifically mentioned WotC, who were very late to the #CreativeCommons party, compared to Fate, Dungeon World, Blades in the Dark, Gumshoe, etc.
I think if you look at the number of derivative systems from those (and the high ratings on places like rpggeek), that their claim it "kills open-source" is demonstrably not true.
It seems to me like a clear combination of "not invented here", plus upset/anger that WotC outflanked the whole debacle by an extreme reversal. (Hey, I'm upset at what WotC attempted, but also very happy with the eventual outcome).
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.