jmhimara
Explorer
I think the CC is overall a much better license than what the OGL was. And generally much easier to use. However, one thing that confuses me about it is: What are the attribution requirements for derivatives of derivatives?
For instance, say I create a product based on the SRD 5.1 and release it under a different license (be it open or closed). It is clear that I need to have the proper attribution to the SRD. What about the people creating works based on mine? Do they have to attribute the original, i.e. the SRD 5.1?
As I understand the CC license, that seems like it would be the case, but wouldn't it be problematic? Say I take the SRD 5.1 and release a virtually unchanged copy under a public domain license (e.g. CC0). Does that mean people can use my version (effectively the SRD) without attribution?
Doesn't sound right.... This was unambiguous in the OGL because it had a "share-alike" component. OGC had to remain OGC.
For instance, say I create a product based on the SRD 5.1 and release it under a different license (be it open or closed). It is clear that I need to have the proper attribution to the SRD. What about the people creating works based on mine? Do they have to attribute the original, i.e. the SRD 5.1?
As I understand the CC license, that seems like it would be the case, but wouldn't it be problematic? Say I take the SRD 5.1 and release a virtually unchanged copy under a public domain license (e.g. CC0). Does that mean people can use my version (effectively the SRD) without attribution?
Doesn't sound right.... This was unambiguous in the OGL because it had a "share-alike" component. OGC had to remain OGC.