The ORC Project: Founding A Scene?
I believe that it's possible for the ORC project to actively and powerfully drive a fairly particular, generally beneficial (as in, everyone wins) open-source scene in tabletop gaming, above and beyond just providing the license, and that it wouldn't be terribly tricky to do.
I'm going to break down this down into five parts.
1. THE LICENSE ITSELF
Beyond what's already been made clear as the intent (similar in most functions to the OGL, but for any system, irrevocable, held by a party that aims to preserve it), I think the license needs this:
Revise any "You may not name product identity" style statements to "You understand and agree that you gain no added rights to closed content" ones. That is, they can still talk about their sources in their text like normal people would, and say that their work is compatible so long as there's no likelihood anyone will think it's "official".
The absolute reservation of product identity never actually stopped compatibility statements in the OGL, it just pushed people into saying silly "World's Oldest Game" lines. Whatever preservation of brand it added was second to the amount of low-grade frustration and resentment at needing to reword and exclude natural and normal language. Frustrating people who otherwise want to supplement a work and would otherwise like to credit sources openly doesn't create a positive atmosphere - the best it can do is pressure them into a secondary compatibility-stating license that nobody is going to trust and which they'll also low-grade resent. "Official compatibility" programs can and probably should have something more to offer than "We'll stop frustrating you."
Making this change takes away the biggest barrier to movement towards openness. We're not yet actively forwarding it, but let's continue...
2. THE USAGE GUIDE
It's looking a lot like the license will be released with some guidelines for use; an FAQ, some best practices, that sort of thing.
I believe this usage guide needs to be written to strongly forward this principle:
Creators should only make open what they are ready to celebrate others using, and using however they see fit; if you're likely to think people are using it wrong, don't open it up. Be ready to cheer for people that use your content!
This is because it's important to ensure that people don't get Giver's Remorse about putting things out there, and to prime the idea that, yes, it's right to cheer each other on. It's what we do here.
The usage guide should also prime people to consider what their intended use case is, even as it prepares them to accept it often won't be adhered to. If an SRD is meant to allow barebones free trials, does it have the parts for that? If it's meant to make it easy to allow supplement-writing, does it give access to everything needed? If it's meant to put forward ideas the creator thinks ought to be in more games, does it frame them and show why people would want to?
Additionally, the usage guide should contain a discussion about the natural (nominative) use of trademarks in the text. That they are not forbidden doesn't mean "anything goes" - you can't indicate compatibility in a way that makes people think you are "official", you can't use someone's trademark casually in the text in such a way that will make people believe it's your trademark, and if there's likely to be any question whatsoever, it's good to put a disclaimer at the front of the document (often around the credits) that goes like "Thus-and-so are trademarks of Actual Holder, and no challenge is intended by their use".
Finally, the usage guide should suggest providing a copy of any SRD or open content document to one or more repositories set up specifically (by the project proper or early volunteers) to hold such documents, in addition to maintaining your own copy. Nothing mandatory, just a note that this is a good practice (we'll get to why in a second).
3. THE REPOSITORY
Whether "official" or disparately volunteer-run, the repositories set up to collect SRDs and open content documents should generally be relatively minimalist, ideally pretty easy to search and download from, but especially easy to spot "what's the new stuff?". Hold on one more second again, and the reason will be clear.
4. DURING RELEASE
When the license goes public, as a minor note in communications, forward the notion that "For those of you wanting to track, report on, or showcase new stuff as it comes out, there's this / are these repositories for SRDs and open content docs that we're hoping people will use, which you can keep an eye on as well as your usual channels."
5. THE EARLY COMMUNITY
Beyond the official project, which will be trying to line up a fair number of larger SRDs for release right off the bat, people who are in the general field of interest for ORC can prep for launch by lining up and system-neutral or drag-and-drop game component things they have, and holding those ready to also release in the early days of the license, as open content documents that can also be dropped into the repository (or repositories) to help prime the scene.
WHAT ALL THIS DOES
So, now you have a bunch of creators and mashup folks who aren't giving away their ability to lift up each other's works in their own, aren't mildly annoyed by the license terms in this regard, and are primed to celebrate each other. They're putting things with clear usage cases (and plenty of "or whatever else you like") into centralized places where designers and hackers can look - and also where youtubers, bloggers, and others can pull from to tell everyone "What's new in the world of ORC?".
And if that ease of finding material for review and reportage results in any amount of "showcasing", that's free press, which in turn becomes a new reason to create open content and put it where it can be picked up and showcased.
Everyone wins, and we potentially get a virtuous cycle, building upwards. Even if it's not a major effect, there's no loss; each piece is positive unto itself.