Looking forward to see what the #ORC Open license for #TTRPG will do for the community.
Having #OpenSource principles spread to other industries is really encouraging.
Thank you #Paizo for spearheading this.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sib4?Second-Draft-of-the-ORC-License-Ready-for
@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.
@dwgill @ami it seems like justification of some very narrow cherry picking "this one is too hot, and that one is too cold".
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).
Even the outcome of things like #BRP now being released under #ORC are a great outcome. (ORC is better than nothing).
