licensing

Creative Commons vs GPL

So why use the GNU Public Licence (made for coders), when books usually use the Creative Commons licence?

Well firstly, BIND is code. It's not normal code, but technically speaking the book is coded, even if that 'code' is just a bunch of sentences.

This code is what I care about, so it's what is licensed. A Creative Commons licence wouldn't cover the functions used to create goblin stats, or the way the borders are composed, or how the images are layered.

Further, a CC0 licence, when applied to a pdf, gives the reader no real ability to change the book, because pdfs cannot be edited. Even if we circumvent this with special software, the page number references will not update, nor the index or glossary. Without the code, your right to modify the pdf is about as useful as cis men with the right to have babies.

GNU Free Document Licence

My impression was that the many people who suggested using the GFDL haven't read it. It's a turgid, awful read, and I don't understand it. I can't apply a licence I don't understand.

Further, the licence requires that the licence itself is printed in its entirety in the book, so some appendix F would have to be added (to every book), stating a bunch of legal nonsense that the users players don't care about.

Finally, the GFDL was so poorly received in general that a smaller version was proposed, with fewer restrictions. It was never officially finished, simply proposed, so it too cannot be used.