A similar fracture occurred in the software industry where there we ended up with multiple open source licenses - the GNU General Public Licence (GPL), the BSD licence, the MIT licence, the Apache Licence, etc. The philosophical arguments used by proponents of the different options were the same - the GPL was the first, but not everyone agreed with its stipulation that downstream projects need to release any changes or improvements they make back to the community. This is why Microsoft under Steve Ballmer described Linux as a cancer. He felt that this approach was terrible for the whole industry. Anything that touched GPL code might become infected, making it hard to run a closed- source proprietary software company. The BSD license went in the other direction, throwing stuff over the fence with no expectation that people who used it would contribute anything back to the community. Many people are surprised that Apple's entire desktop operating system is built on top of BSD-licensed components they took from open source projects. But there is no way in hell Apple will release their modifications back under the same license. The big difference in the open source world is the existence of governance bodies who help projects make the right licensing choice for their project. These bodies also work behind the scenes to ensure the licences are somewhat compatible with each other. The most important of these is the Open Source Initiative (OSI). The gaming industry doesn't have anything equivalent. Ryan Dancey's Open Gaming Foundation (OGF) could fill the role, but it hasn't really been active since 2003 or so. Another big difference is that the gaming industry has a dominant malicious actor (WoTC) seemingly eager to undermine the concept of open gaming. They have backed off for now given the public backlash, but they haven't ruled out another attempt in 2024. And leaving the threat hanging has a chilling effect across the entire industry.