Creative Commons or OGL?

[randalls]

I'm planning to release a version of my Hidden Valley mini-setting and haven't decided how to license it so others can use it. As it contains no WOTC IP whatsoever, I do not have to use the OGL. As I really don't like the OGL much (it seems far too complex for my tastes, like the new GPL3), I'm think of releasing it under one of the the Creative Commons licenses. Does anyone see any problems with this that I do not?

[brianm]

I'm hardly an expert on these matters, but I don't see a problem there at all.  I assume you want others to be able to use your stuff in their published material?

- Brian

[Greyharp]

I know even less about Creative Commons than I do the OGL, so my opinion won't count for much. Although the OGL/SRD has been an enormous boon to retro-gamers (as with the clones), I personally think if you can produce something without having to use the OGL, so much the better.

[randalls]

I know even less about Creative Commons than I do the OGL, so my opinion won't count for much. Although the OGL/SRD has been an enormous boon to retro-gamers (as with the clones), I personally think if you can produce something without having to use the OGL, so much the better.

The main thing I like about Creative Commons licenses is I can use a "no-commercial" license which means the Hidden Valley could not be used in commercial products without my specific consent. While I have no problems with some small retrogaming company (e.g. Goblinoid Games) using the material without payment, I really don't have any desire to give my work for free to some large company (e.g. WOTC, White Wolf) on those same terms. A Creative Commons license with the "no commercial" clause lets fans do what they want with the material, but prevents for-profit use without my specific consent.

I could declare everything Hidden Valley "product identity" and use the OGL, but that prevents everyone from reusing the material without my permission.  To me, that's throwing the baby out with the bath water. However, I have no idea how compatible the OGL and the CC licenses are.

[Richter_Bravesteel]

I wish I knew enough about copy right to really help. Maybe you could simply bill it as a  game less setting?

[randalls]

I wish I knew enough about copy right to really help. Maybe you could simply bill it as a  game less setting?

That's what it is. It's a basic description of a huge mountain valley cut off from the rest of the world save by one narrow pass. I used to for a lot of short "alternative campaigns" in the 1980s. There are lots of hooks for GMs to take off from, but not a lot detailed and nothing that requires a particular set of rules.

[Richter_Bravesteel]

I think you are in the clear then- lots of people seem to have stuff like that all over the internet.

Not sure how you would go about copyrighting that, though.

[randalls]

Not sure how you would go about copyrighting that, though.

That's easy as it has already been copyrighted since I used it in player handouts in 1984. It's my original work and has my copyright notice on it -- so its copyrighted. Under current copyright law, you really have to work to not have something you wrote and published copyrighted by default.  An OGL or Creative Commons license will just make sure others can use it easily without having to bother me to get permission.

[Richter_Bravesteel]

All stuff I would have understood if I had read the first post more thoroughly. ^^;

Sorry about that, Randall!

[DrBadLogic]

I'm planning to release a version of my Hidden Valley mini-setting and haven't decided how to license it so others can use it. As it contains no WOTC IP whatsoever, I do not have to use the OGL. As I really don't like the OGL much (it seems far too complex for my tastes, like the new GPL3), I'm think of releasing it under one of the the Creative Commons licenses. Does anyone see any problems with this that I do not?

Maybe this si something people at places like The Forge could help you out with. A lot of those guys set up their own companies to publish their game, so I'm sure some of them must have considered the options you're facing.

Can't help you out personally, I'm afraid.

[randalls]

Maybe this si something people at places like The Forge could help you out with. A lot of those guys set up their own companies to publish their game, so I'm sure some of them must have considered the options you're facing.

The Forge weirds me out. But you're right, I might want to at least do a search there and see if this has been discussed.

[RobertFisher]

My advice: One of these two options...

(1) Don’t bother with either license (up front). Let anyone who wants to use your work contact you and work out specific terms for that specific use.

(2) Make it public domain. Give up your concerns. Get your reward from the creation itself and from using it yourself.

I’m a fan of the Creative Commons, but I tend to feel the various copyleft licenses that are out there get over used and are a needless complication for a lot of works.

[Kensanata]

(1) Don’t bother with either license [...]
(2) Make it public domain [...]

Both of them are valid points. The public domain or the OGL would have the benefit of making it compatible with a lot of existing material, allowing other people to build on it -- easily remix and republish your stuff -- even years down the road -- without having to track you down. That's something I'd like to encourage.

For a site I'm using, I've also used the following blurb: "This work is licensed to you under version 2 of the GNU General Public License. Alternatively, you may choose to receive this work under any other license that grants the right to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute the work, as long as that license imposes the restriction that derivative works have to grant the same rights and impose the same restriction. For example, you may choose to receive this work under the GNU Free Documentation License, the CreativeCommons ShareAlike License, the XEmacs manual license, or similar licenses."

Perhaps you could draft up something similar? The various licenses are incompatible amongst each other, but you could use various licenses at the same time and let the receiver decide.

Also -- since you're worrying about big corps taking your stuff -- consider the trade-off: Make it harder for a small number of fans in the far future (perhaps a likely scenario) or make it harder for a big corp in the near future (perhaps a very unlikely scenario).

[randalls]

Perhaps you could draft up something similar? The various licenses are incompatible amongst each other, but you could use various licenses at the same time and let the receiver decide.

That's an interesting idea. My main goal is to limit for-profit use (and to prevent people from publishing it under something like the WOTC GSL that could take MY rights away unless I was able to spend 100K or more in court fighting WOTC/Hasbro).