Open RPG Creative (ORC) License Draft Published

​

Paizo Publishing and Azora Law have published the initial draft of the Open RPG Creative license (ORC) for public feedback. This license was concieved of during January's Open Gaming License (OGL) controversy and was designed as an independent, irrevocable replacement for that license. Also available is an FAQ, or the 'Answers & Explanations" (AxE) which explains the structure.

Commentary can be left until April 21st, and the intention is to finish the license by the end of April.

So what is ORC? It's an open license which can be used by any creator to 'open' their game up so that other creators can use it. It is independent and irrevocable, and cannot be updated or revised.

paizo.com - Community / Paizo Blog

 

[Micah Sweet]

Really looking forward to seeing who signs on to this, now that there's something to review.

 

[payn]

 

[Alzrius]

The ORC FAQ also mentions that people can use the ORC to set up a game that isn't part of the virtuous circle, using an example of a sports organization.

No, that's not the same thing. It mentions that you can separate Product Identity (the same way you can with the OGL) from "ORC Content" (i.e. the same as Open Game Content with the OGL):

I just got the license to build an RPG on the newest Hollywood blockbuster! Can I build this on the ORC License?

Definitely. Because you are not obligated to license any of your Product Identity back to the ORC community, you can create RPGs for whatever sports league, movie franchise, or entertainment brand you want without jeopardizing their assets. We have negotiated with most of the big movie studios and sports leagues and while they often come to the table wanting to own everything including the game mechanics, we have rarely failed to educate them and eventually get clauses put in their contracts that they acknowledge they do not own the game system, which is at the heart of the ORC License.

To be clear, the "virtuous circle" is when derivative content that you make under the license (i.e. as an expansion of existing licensed content) is automatically relicensed for "downstream" users, which is something that the ORC License plans to do, but which Creative Commons BY 4.0 doesn't.

 

[Alzrius]

What is the benefit of continuing with this license as opposed to using Creative Commons?

Parroting what I said in my last post, this appears (if I'm reading it right) to function in a way that's near-identical to the Open Game License, in that anything you declare to be "ORC Content" (which functions like the OGL's Open Game Content) is automatically relicensed for people who want to create derivative content, which is itself automatically relicensed for others to use, etc. From what I can tell, CC BY 4.0 doesn't do that.

For instance, say that you decide to release a product that has some new feats, monsters, spells, etc. for D&D 5E based on the Creative Commons 5.1 SRD. Unless you deliberately specify it, that new material isn't itself available for other people to modify or expand on in their own products using the CC BY 4.0. Whereas in the ORC License, everything made from existing ORC Content is itself ORC Content, so there's (ideally) less ambiguity about what can be reused, and more content is available to the wider community as a whole to build on.

...or at least, I think that's how it's supposed to work.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm still reading this over, but from what I can tell, this looks a lot like what many of us were saying we wanted a hypothetical OGL v1.0b to be back in January: a license that gave us everything the OGL v1.0a already did, but with stronger protections.

 

[bedir than]

To be clear, the "virtuous circle" is when derivative content that you make under the license (i.e. as an expansion of existing licensed content) is automatically relicensed for "downstream" users, which is something that the ORC License plans to do, but which Creative Commons BY 4.0 doesn't.

in that anything you declare to be "ORC Content"

Right. So it is in fact no different than Creative Commons in that it doesn't require one to declare anything ORC Content. You could choose to derive a game from the ORC and not declare any new material ORC Content.

It's then closed. The exact same way someone who uses CC-BY can choose to do.

 

[kenada]

I'm still reading this over, but from what I can tell, this looks a lot like what many of us were saying we wanted a hypothetical OGL v1.0b to be back in January: a license that gave us everything the OGL v1.0a already did, but with stronger protections.

And clarity. One thing I remember from the OGL discussions is it seems to imply that game mechanics are Open Game Content, but many publishers have designated game mechanics as OGC. It seems like that wouldn’t be possible under the ORC License. In particular, III.c. seems to say that definitionally ORC Content is ORC Content regardless of Product Identity designation.

 

[kenada]

Right. So it is in fact no different than Creative Commons in that it doesn't require one to declare anything ORC Content. You could choose to derive a game from the ORC and not declare any new material ORC Content.

It's then closed. The exact same way someone who uses CC-BY can choose to do.

You presumably don’t have to declare anything ORC Content because the license says there is a bunch of stuff that is definitionally ORC Content, and it seems it’s not possible to change that (“In the event of a conflict between Your designation of Product Identity and the definition of ORC Content, the definition shall control.”). That’s pretty different from CC-BY.

 

[bedir than]

You presumably don’t have to declare anything ORC Content because the license says there is a bunch of stuff that is definitionally ORC Content, and it seems it’s not possible to change that (“In the event of a conflict between Your designation of Product Identity and the definition of ORC Content, the definition shall control.”). That’s pretty different from CC-BY.

Let's say a company develops a company with ruleset xyz. And then another layers ab onto that. Nothing about ORC makes ab now Orc -- which is exactly the same as CC-BY

 

[Alzrius]

Right. So it is in fact no different than Creative Commons in that it doesn't require one to declare anything ORC Content. You could choose to derive a game from the ORC and not declare any new material ORC Content.

Wrong. You are, in fact, required to declare something ORC Content: specifically if it's at all derived from existing ORC Content. If you derived a game from ORC Content, you'd have no choice but to declare the new material to be itself ORC Content.

It's then closed. The exact same way someone who uses CC-BY can choose to do.

Nope, it's open, permanently and forever. Completely different from the way CC-BY-4.0 works.