Traveller Open Content - New Programme on the Way!

[Prime_Evil]

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.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Let me add something on topic here. I believe we need a open version of Traveller because it is the most flexible and feature- complete science fiction RPG out there. There are many different visions of science fiction out there and official Mongoose publications can only service a few of them. Here are two examples - how about a campaign setting based around SF tropes of time travel or alternate worlds The OTU and 2300AD are great, but inviting third-party publishers to go in different directions strengthens the brand as a whole. The value of any game system lies in the number of people who play it. It's a classic example of what economists call network externalities. Even the best obscure game systems struggle to gain market traction because it's hard to find anyone to play with. Conversely, a popular game system attracts more players because it's easy to find other people to play with. I argue Mongoose has an opportunity here to strengthen Traveller's position as the dominant SF rule system by building an ecosystem around it.

 

[apastuszak]

I think it will be interesting to see what licenses come up.

Let me add something on topic here. I believe we need a open version of Traveller because it is the most flexible and feature- complete science fiction RPG out there. There are many different visions of science fiction out there and official Mongoose publications can only service a few of them. Here are two examples - how about a campaign setting based around SF tropes of time travel or alternate worlds The OTU and 2300AD are great, but inviting third-party publishers to go in different directions strengthens the brand as a whole. The value of any game system lies in the number of people who play it. It's a classic example of what economists call network externalities. Even the best obscure game systems struggle to gain market traction because it's hard to find anyone to play with. Conversely, a popular game system attracts more players because it's easy to find other people to play with. I argue Mongoose has an opportunity here to strengthen Traveller's position as the dominant SF rule system by building an ecosystem around it.

We have an open version of Traveller. It's called the Cepheus Engine. It's just not an open version of Mongoose Traveller 2E.

I think one problem with Traveller open content is that Traveller has 2 masters: Mongoose Publishing and Marc Miller/FFE. Traveller IP, such as The Third Imperium setting and the various races, will never end up under an open license.

 

[apastuszak]

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.

These various open source licenses are the reason why thing like Sun Microsystem ZFS disk format can't be included with Linux kernel. Oracles CDDL is incompatible with Linux's GPL 2.1.

I don't think that's a bad thing. It's the reality of the situation.

I think with the open gaming community something similar is happening. We now have ORC (which IS finalized) and the OGL. But some people don't like the ORC, and are now working on the ELF license. Since ORC is a response to OGL, I have to assume they're incompatible. And since ELF is a response to ORC, I have to assume they're incompatible.

And then we have the elephant in the room, at least in the US. We have 2 supreme court rulings that say game mechanics can't be copyrighted. But even though game mechanics can't be copyrighted, these open licenses add certainty. That's their value. Rather than someone rummaging through a game's rulebook and figuring out what is game mechanic and is what is IP, an open license tells you. For example, the actual game mechanics of the jump drive can't be copyrighted (at least in the US). But what about the name "Jump Drive?" Is that FFE IP and your open product needs to call it something else or can you use Jump Drive? Well, if the term Jump Drive is in an SRD published under an open license, then you know it's OK to use it. It prevents you from spending thousands to design a product, only to get a cease-and-desist letter 1 week after you launch a product.

For me, I'm all about open source and open standards. I use Linux at home. I use Linux at work. So, I naturally want my games to use an open license.

 

[Prime_Evil]

I think it will be interesting to see what licenses come up.

We have an open version of Traveller. It's called the Cepheus Engine. It's just not an open version of Mongoose Traveller 2E.

I think one problem with Traveller open content is that Traveller has 2 masters: Mongoose Publishing and Marc Miller/FFE. Traveller IP, such as The Third Imperium setting and the various races, will never end up under an open license.

I like the Cepheus Engine. Some stuff produced for it is very good indeed. I'd include material such as Hostile by Zozer Games and the Clement Sector by Independence Games as some of my favorite SF settings. But continued uncertainty around the OGL is making continued publication under that rule system untenable. A number of CE publishers are already looking at alternatives regardless of what Mongoose do.

I don't expect the Third Imperium setting to end up under an open license either. I envision three different publishing streams - official products put out via Mongoose / FFE, third-party OTU products produced via the Traveller's Aid Society, and original works produced under an open licence.. I think this approach provides both certainty and flexibility to the entire ecosystem. And it helps drive the continued support for the various Mongoose product lines.

 

[Prime_Evil]

These various open source licenses are the reason why thing like Sun Microsystem ZFS disk format can't be included with Linux kernel. Oracles CDDL is incompatible with Linux's GPL 2.1.

I don't think that's a bad thing. It's the reality of the situation.

I think with the open gaming community something similar is happening. We now have ORC (which IS finalized) and the OGL. But some people don't like the ORC, and are now working on the ELF license. Since ORC is a response to OGL, I have to assume they're incompatible. And since ELF is a response to ORC, I have to assume they're incompatible.

And then we have the elephant in the room, at least in the US. We have 2 supreme court rulings that say game mechanics can't be copyrighted. But even though game mechanics can't be copyrighted, these open licenses add certainty. That's their value. Rather than someone rummaging through a game's rulebook and figuring out what is game mechanic and is what is IP, an open license tells you. For example, the actual game mechanics of the jump drive can't be copyrighted (at least in the US). But what about the name "Jump Drive?" Is that FFE IP and your open product needs to call it something else or can you use Jump Drive? Well, if the term Jump Drive is in an SRD published under an open license, then you know it's OK to use it. It prevents you from spending thousands to design a product, only to get a cease-and-desist letter 1 week after you launch a product.

For me, I'm all about open source and open standards. I use Linux at home. I use Linux at work. So, I naturally want my games to use an open license.

I'm a Linux user too. A lot of shenanigans around ZFS were due to Oracle trying to harm potential competitors (especially Red Hat). The only reason the CDDL existsat all is to hurt Linux, Despite this, the Linux implementation of ZFS is now leaping ahead of the BSD implementation. Heck, even Ubuntu includes ZFS on root as an installation option these days. I'd argue that's the power of open collaboration.

I think the emerging conflict between the ORC and ELF licenses is due to a fundamental philosophical difference about whether downstream projects should contribute improvements back upstream. The ORC license is viral - any new mechanics you create based on an upstream work become available for competitors to re-use. But the ELF license allows you to take material from upstream and give nothing back. This is almost identical to the difference between the GPL and BSD licenses.

 

[apastuszak]

I like the Cepheus Engine. Some stuff produced for it is very good indeed. I'd include material such as Hostile by Zozer Games and the Clement Sector by Independence Games as some of my favorite SF settings. But continued uncertainty around the OGL is making continued publication under that rule system untenable. A number of CE publishers are already looking at alternatives regardless of what Mongoose do.

I don't expect the Third Imperium setting to end up under an open license either. I envision three different publishing streams - official products put out via Mongoose / FFE, third-party OTU products produced via the Traveller's Aid Society, and original works produced under an open licence.. I think this approach provides both certainty and flexibility to the entire ecosystem. And it helps drive the continued support for the various Mongoose product lines.

I think they settled the OGL uncertainty at this point. WoTC is not going to mess with any it any more. I think, in the future, they may just abandon it.

It would be nice if Mongoose re-licensed the SRD that Cepheus Engine is based on to ORC or ELF. I doubt anything in their SRD uses has anything in it from WoTC's SRD. So, a simple re-license should be pretty straighforward.

If there was an ORC/OGL/ELF licensed SRD for MgTe 2, a lot of publishers could port their Cepheus Engine content to MgT 2e.

 

[apastuszak]

I'm a Linux user too. A lot of shenanigans around ZFS were due to Oracle trying to harm potential competitors (especially Red Hat). The only reason the CDDL existsat all is to hurt Linux, Despite this, the Linux implementation of ZFS is now leaping ahead of the BSD implementation. Heck, even Ubuntu includes ZFS on root as an installation option these days. I'd argue that's the power of open collaboration.

I think the emerging conflict between the ORC and ELF licenses is due to a fundamental philosophical difference about whether downstream projects should contribute improvements back upstream. The ORC license is viral - any new mechanics you create based on an upstream work become available for competitors to re-use. But the ELF license allows you to take material from upstream and give nothing back. This is almost identical to the difference between the GPL and BSD licenses.

Sun Microsystems created the CDDL and licensed Solaris, Java and OpenOffice under it. Then Oracle came along and bought Sun in order to sue Google. Oracle is NOT open source friendly. They immediately killed OpenSolaris. Then they had a revolt from the OpenOffice developers, and LibreOffice was born.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I think one problem with Traveller open content is that Traveller has 2 masters: Mongoose Publishing and Marc Miller/FFE. Traveller IP, such as The Third Imperium setting and the various races, will never end up under an open license.

Worth pointing out that in this (and most things Traveller, for that matter), Mongoose and Mr Miller are in complete lockstep. We do not make a move on licensing of this nature without a green light from him.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Worth pointing out that in this (and most things Traveller, for that matter), Mongoose and Mr Miller are in complete lockstep. We do not make a move on licensing of this nature without a green light from him.

That's a good thing. It's different from something like Legend where it's an original IP developed from the Mongoose edition of RQ II.

 

[Studio Cat]

So, for all their touting of the "virtuous circle" that the ORC was going to produce, when the rubber meets the road and dollars are on the line, Paizo has banned the use of the ORC license in association with Pathfinder Infinite and Starfinder Infinite.

This video covers it in more detail...
[video]

 

[MongooseMatt]

It is my understanding that they are doing that on their equivalent of the TAS programme - perfectly understandable, world IP is very different from rules IP.

 

[Prime_Evil]

It is my understanding that they are doing that on their equivalent of the TAS programme - perfectly understandable, world IP is very different from rules IP.

I expect something similar for Traveller. Mongoose may release the Traveller rule systems under the ORC licence. But if you want to produce commercial material for the Third Imperium setting, TAS is the only option. Which is fine - Mongoose and FFE have put a lot of work into fleshing out the setting. Both companies do seem to allow non-profit websites and fan works set in the Third Imperium. FFE has a formal policy but Mongoose is more relaxed.

 

[Prime_Evil]

A unique feature of Traveller is the existence of entire new rule systems in sourcebooks. Mongoose produced a couple of updates to the old System Reference Document for first edition. There was one adding some material from Mercenary and one adding some stuff from High Guard. Rules sprawl is more of an issue with second edition where several books add substantial extensions to the rules (eg. robots, exploration, detailed worldbuilding, etc.). Will Mongoose look at adding periodic updates to the second edition open content? If so, might I suggest a year or two grace period between the release of new rules content and an SRD update for it? This ensures the open content program doesn't cannibalise sales.

 

[Anstett]

I expect something similar for Traveller. Mongoose may release the Traveller rule systems under the ORC licence. But if you want to produce commercial material for the Third Imperium setting, TAS is the only option. Which is fine - Mongoose and FFE have put a lot of work into fleshing out the setting. Both companies do seem to allow non-profit websites and fan works set in the Third Imperium. FFE has a formal policy but Mongoose is more relaxed.

Actually that is a problem. TAS is only for PDF on RPGNow.

Some of us would create and publish on other (VTT) platforms if allowed.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Actually that is a problem. TAS is only for PDF on RPGNow.

Some of us would create and publish on other (VTT) platforms if allowed.

Keep in mind that Roll20 own Drivethrurpg now. So there might be contractual reasons why that isn't possible. But we won't be privy to those.

 

[Anstett]

Keep in mind that Roll20 own Drivethrurpg now. So there might be contractual reasons why that isn't possible. But we won't be privy to those.

Yes that is why we need a different program than TAS.

 

[Prime_Evil]

It's hard to believe it is almost twelve months since the OGL debacle. They responded to rumours of changes to the licence on 22 November 2022. And they released the draft deauthorising the OGL almost exactly one month later on 21 December 2022. It would be really good if Mongoose could release details of the Traveller Open Content program on that date...lol

 

[ottarrus]

So is this TAS initiative and OGL issue Traveller-wide or just Mongoose or?
I admit to not having kept up with the whole issue as it was screamed about in the Court Of Geek Opinion.
I ask because I was thinking of trying to put together some Zhodani ship designs for 5FW. No deck plans because my computer art skills are nonexistent, but some detailed descriptions and High Guard stats.

 

[Vormaerin]

So is this TAS initiative and OGL issue Traveller-wide or just Mongoose or?
I admit to not having kept up with the whole issue as it was screamed about in the Court Of Geek Opinion.
I ask because I was thinking of trying to put together some Zhodani ship designs for 5FW. No deck plans because my computer art skills are nonexistent, but some detailed descriptions and High Guard stats.

If you are publishing that stuff on DTRPG with the TAS license, that's no problem. It remains in force. What's still being addressed is new content derived from Traveller like Cepheus or things you want to sell that aren't via DTRPG as there is no standard license for those things currently in place.