# Is the Unearthed Arcana SRD online?



## Kai Lord (Apr 5, 2004)

If it is can someone post a link?  I'd like to look over the Battle Sorcerer.  Thanks.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Apr 5, 2004)

I don't think that Unearthed Arcana will be released to the SRD or as one.  It is mostly AFAIK Open Game Content, though, so someone could post the battle sorcerer with the OGL (or maybe even without it, I guess).  I'll try and do it later if no one else gets to it first.

Best,
Nick


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 5, 2004)

I'm not under the impression that Unearthed Arcana is going to be added to the SRD.  Unlike the other products that have had material added (MotP, Epic), UA actually has an OGL _in_ it.  Also, unlike the Epic and MotP materials which expand the "coverage" of the d20 System, UA is really only options.

About the best you can expect is that, should WotC ever notice that one of these variants is being used 80% of the time, that variant may replace the Core rule governing the same game element.  But that's a good year or two away from even being a consideration, I would say, after the effects of the different variants have been given the test of time.


----------



## Felon (Apr 5, 2004)

So if someone wants to use material from UA...they may actually need to buy the book?

Pure evil!


----------



## trancejeremy (Apr 5, 2004)

Most of UA is open content, so there is no need for them to put it in the SRD. The SRD only exists as a way for WOTC to release open content without doing it in their books. UA is an exception to that policy of not putting open content in the books themselves.


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 5, 2004)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> I don't think that Unearthed Arcana will be released to the SRD or as one.  It is mostly AFAIK Open Game Content, though, so someone could post the battle sorcerer with the OGL (or maybe even without it, I guess).  I'll try and do it later if no one else gets to it first.



That'd be cool.  I already know they have d8 HP, Cleric BAB, and Intimidate instead of Bluff, with one less spell known/per day than a Sorcerer of the same level, and also get a free proficiency with a one handed martial weapon.

Is there anything else?  Other class abilities such as bonus feats or casting through their sword or anything?


----------



## Citizen Mane (Apr 5, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> That'd be cool.  I already know they have d8 HP, Cleric BAB, and Intimidate instead of Bluff, with one less spell known/per day than a Sorcerer of the same level, and also get a free proficiency with a one handed martial weapon.
> 
> Is there anything else?  Other class abilities such as bonus feats or casting through their sword or anything?



 You've got it covered mostly.  They also have light armor proficiency and no arcane spell failure in light armor for battle sorcerer spells.  That's it.  

Best,
Nick


----------



## TroyXavier (Apr 5, 2004)

Nope, that's all a Battle Sorceror gets.  They're just quick variants, not a complete redo of the class.


----------



## Fiendish Dire Weasel (Apr 5, 2004)

They have one less spell per day per spell level and one less spell known per spell level with a minimum of 1 spell known per level, so they still get 1 2rd level spell at 4th level, they just don't get a second 2nd level spell until 7th and never have more than 4 2nd level spells known, for example.


----------



## Swiftbrook (Apr 5, 2004)

*Unearthed Arcana SRD -- Can Do!*

Let's do it!

Let's create an UA SRD.

Steps involved
1) Need to volunteer to type or OCR a page or 2 from UA
2) Post the pages you are volunteering for here with an page ETA
3) Proof read your typing/OCR for errors
4) Save each page as a text like *UA-001.txt* for page 1 of Unearthed Arcana
5) Send the document to our layout specialist/chief editor who is _________ (??)  This does not need to be one person, but the fewer the better.  I can do some-to-all of the layout, I'll be using a format such as sovelior's.  Someone needs to check my spelling 
6) goto step 1
7) The layout sppecialist/chief editor can be pull the pages together, format them and post the UA SRD at a willing site (www.systemreferencedocuments.org maybe    )

Notes, names such as Krusk, Gimble, and Jozan all need to be changed because they are product identity.  But, pictures can be pulled into an only document like is done at www.systemreferencedocuments.org.

Here are some *basic* ideas for name changes.  If you want, this can be voted on the the layout specialist/chief editor can make the final changes.
Krusk -- Kevin
Gimble -- George
Jozan -- Jeff
Vadania -- Valerie
Tordek -- Tom
Regdar -- Roger
Ember -- Emily
Alhandra -- Andrea
Soveliss -- Steve
Lidda -- Linda
Hennet -- Henry
Mialee -- Melissa
Nebin -- Ned
The names are meant to be borning and basic so that there is no illusion that we are treading on WotC product identity.  Also, any spell name references would need to be changed to those in the SRD.

Also, need a define volunteer(s) for the layout specialist/chief editor.  Volunteers???

-Swiftbrook


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Apr 5, 2004)

That would rock too much for words.


----------



## F5 (Apr 5, 2004)

Swiftbrook said:
			
		

> 5) Send the document to our layout Notes, names such as Krusk, Gimble, and Jozan all need to be changed because they are product identity.  But, pictures can be pulled into an only document like is done at www.systemreferencedocuments.org.
> 
> 
> -Swiftbrook





Careful, there.  I don't have the book here so I can't say for sure, but I'd be real surprised if WotC didn't declare artwork as Product Identity.  Just because it's an online-only document doesn't mean the rules of the OGL change...

But, anyway, probably the only way to get Unearthed Arcana online in SRD form is to do it ourselves, And there's no reason we can't.  I'm surprised it hasn't been done somewhere already.  So why not?  It could be a fun ENWorld Community Project (tm).  

Shall we take this over to the d20 OGL forum?


----------



## BlackFalconKY (Apr 5, 2004)

*Some of it done*

Hey folks, I've already retyped portions of Unearthed Arcana for use in my new FR campaign.  I've got the bloodlines and charts, totem barbarians, variant paladins, battle sorcerer (with level and spell progression chart), the variant (craft point) item creation feats, and the arcane domains.  You would need to double check to make sure I included all of the flavor text, but I'd be glad to donate what I've already done to the cause.  Let me know a coordinator/editor email address to contact.  I'm particularly interested in getting the Item Familiar and Legendary Weapons sections from someone!  

Charles Plemons

Edit: Oh, and I've got all the rules info (but not the flavor text) of all the racial paragons except for the half-dragon paragon.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 5, 2004)

Great idea-- a resource I would use often. I do all my design work on my wireless laptop, hither and thither throughout the house, and not having to get up and rummage through books is great. I use tons of online resources.

Just be careful with your Open Content/Product Identity, guys. Sounds like you're on the ball, but I'd make sure several pairs of eyes see it before you post it anywhere.

And when you reach the point that you're dropping in graphics and prettying it up, no matter how much you think people will need to see it, DO NOT use the d20 logo anywhere on it or reference the d20 system anywhere within it. 

That will eliminate a lot of pitfalls and headaches right off the bat.


Wulf


----------



## Mercule (Apr 5, 2004)

I need to type up the Weapon Group Feats, anyway, for my group.  Somebody post an email and I'll cc my work there.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 5, 2004)

Swiftbrook said:
			
		

> Krusk -- Kevin
> 
> The names are meant to be boring and basic....




There is no love.

- Kevin Kulp (Piratecat)


----------



## Mercule (Apr 5, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> There is no love.
> 
> - Kevin Kulp (Piratecat)



And with that association, my image of Krusk the barbarian is forever altered.


----------



## Fester (Apr 5, 2004)

F5 said:
			
		

> Careful, there.  I don't have the book here so I can't say for sure, but I'd be real surprised if WotC didn't declare artwork as Product Identity.  Just because it's an online-only document doesn't mean the rules of the OGL change...




Well, here's what it says in UA...

*Product Identity:* The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), artwork, trade dress, and the names and game statistics for the following monsters: beholder, displacer beast, gauth, githyanki, mind flayer, slass, umber hulk, and yuan-ti.

*Open Content:* Except for the material designated as Product Identity (see above) and the githyanki/githzerai, slaad, and yuan-ti bloodlines in Chapter 1, the contents of this WIZARDS OF THE COAST game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Gaming License Version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission.

HTH


----------



## Trainz (Apr 5, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> There is no love.
> 
> - Kevin Kulp (Piratecat)





			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> And with that association, my image of Krusk the barbarian is forever altered.










From http://www.furnation.com/cyberklaw/pencil.htm without permission


----------



## Swiftbrook (Apr 5, 2004)

F5 said:
			
		

> Careful, there.  I don't have the book here so I can't say for sure, but I'd be real surprised if WotC didn't declare artwork as Product Identity.  Just because it's an online-only document doesn't mean the rules of the OGL change...




I did some looking ... several months ago the online SRD at http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html had art on the pages.  The art was WotC art, linked from WotC site, just displayed on the SRD.  It's not included in the current version.  I guess that someone got a (nasty) letter from WotC _asking_ for the art to be removed.  But I do not know this for a fact.

Which means, no art in the online UA SRD project.

I am willing to act as the page layout person.   You can post which pages you are doing, then send them to me as a text file to swiftbrook@hotmail.com  I am *NOT* a lawer, and I am not a good speller.  I can build the pages, but someone else should volunteer to be the Chief Editor.  To we have any organization willing to host these pages -- I have no hosting capabilities.

[off topic] Someone previously mentioned Weapon Groups.  I do have an excel spreadsheet with all the weapons listed from the PHB, Complete Warrior and Arms & Equipment organized by weapons groups.  I added the unlisted weapons to appropriate groups and made a group or two.  It's not OGC, I used all the correct names, etc.

Let me know what you think.

-Swiftbrook


----------



## reiella (Apr 5, 2004)

Fester said:
			
		

> Well, here's what it says in UA...
> 
> *Product Identity:* The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), artwork, trade dress, and the names and game statistics for the following monsters: beholder, displacer beast, gauth, githyanki, mind flayer, slass, umber hulk, and yuan-ti.
> 
> ...




The definitions on the license page are a bit less friendly to the assumption that art is open content...  Especially given that 'depictions' and 'poses' are both listed as PI.  The definition of Open Game Content also implies that only game mechanics may be defined as OGC (although the veracity of that is questionable).

Regardless, a third party "SRD-esque" writeup (like the 3.5SRD Html thingies I'd guess) for UA would be nifty.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 5, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> So if someone wants to use material from UA...they may actually need to buy the book?
> 
> Pure evil!



It's no more evil than the other third-party, non-WotC _d20_ products.  

Of course, other than Guardians of Order, I have yet to see other third-party _d20_/OGL publishers offering their own SRDs. Hmm?


----------



## Campbell (Apr 6, 2004)

I would be willing to host a UA SRD under my domain name.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 6, 2004)

reiella said:
			
		

> The definitions on the license page are a bit less friendly to the assumption that art is open content...  Especially given that 'depictions' and 'poses' are both listed as PI.  The definition of Open Game Content also implies that only game mechanics may be defined as OGC (although the veracity of that is questionable).
> 
> Regardless, a third party "SRD-esque" writeup (like the 3.5SRD Html thingies I'd guess) for UA would be nifty.




Read a bit more closely: the PI declaration [in Unearthed Arcana] explicitly says that all artwork (among other things) is claimed as PI.

As for the license terms themselves: it's something that's been hashed out over a couple of years on the OGF list, and the consensus is that anything can be declared OGC, but that which is derivative of OGC must be; and anything which is not required to be OGC may be declared PI. Basically, consensus is that the two lists (in the definitions of PI and OGC) are exemplary, not definitive.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 6, 2004)

I don't own a copy, but if someone scans and OCRs it, i'll take the time to make it match my PDF of the D20SRD. (i believe it's mirrored on the SRD project webpage, and it's on our [The Impossible Dream's] webpage, but that's currently down 'cause we need a new harddrive.)

Really, one person should be able to OCR the whole thing in a weekend or so--good OCR software is better than 99% accurate these days with very smart spellcheckers that can pretty much make up that last percent, and it's only a couple hundred pages. And the OCR-er doesn't need to fix the PI-ness--just give me the entire raw text, and i'll gladly strip (or strip-n-replace) the PI. Heck, i may even check around and see if a friend owns a copy and doesn't mind me abusing the binding to OCR it myself. Maybe. Don't hold your breath on that one.


----------



## Fester (Apr 6, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> the consensus is that anything can be declared OGC, but that which is derivative of OGC must be




Interesting interpretation.  I'd be interested to see any discussion threads on this, if you could point me in the right direction.

Looking at the license, I don't see where that interpretation comes from, though I'll admit to not having any expert knowledge in the area.

This is slightly off topic, but the relevant sections (it seems to me) in the license concerning OGC are:



> 2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.




and



> 6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.




and



> 10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.




My reading of those sections is that you can use OGC, but are not required to declare your own product as OGC.  OGC material used must be declared in the license, but remains OGC.  You are also required to include a copy of the license with any products that uses OGC.

Of course, the word _derivative_ is ambiguous, so I may have misinterpreted what you meant by it.  My interpretation of what you're saying is that pretty much anything that uses the SRD is a derivative of it and hence is required to be OGC - and that doesn't seem right.  Excsue me if I'm just being dumb and that isn't what you meant.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 6, 2004)

Fester said:
			
		

> Interesting interpretation. I'd be interested to see any discussion threads on this, if you could point me in the right direction.



www.opengamingfoundation.org

There's about 4+ years of email archives discussing, debating, analyzing, and disecting the topic.




> Looking at the license, I don't see where that interpretation comes from, though I'll admit to not having any expert knowledge in the area.



Open Content is defined in Section 1D:

"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.

So, by "any additional content clearly identified as...", anything can be declared OGC.




> This is slightly off topic, but the relevant sections (it seems to me) in the license concerning OGC are:






> ...
> 
> and
> 
> ...



"Derivitive" is not ambiguous: It is defined in Section 1b as...

*(b)* "Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted;


----------



## Swiftbrook (Apr 6, 2004)

-snip-  sorry 

-Swiftbrook


----------



## Fester (Apr 6, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> www.opengamingfoundation.org
> 
> There's about 4+ years of email archives discussing, debating, analyzing, and disecting the topic.




Thanks.  I'll go and have a look.



			
				Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> "Derivitive" is not ambiguous: It is defined in Section 1b as...




Yep.  I'd call that well defined  

Thanks again.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 6, 2004)

No problem!

And welcome to the wonderful world of Open Gaming.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 6, 2004)

Fester said:
			
		

> Interesting interpretation.  I'd be interested to see any discussion threads on this, if you could point me in the right direction.



Go to the Open Gaming Foundation (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org) and sign up to the ogf-l list, and read the archives. It was a *long* discussion, over several months, if not years. Pay special attention to Ryan Dancey, Alec [forgot-his-last-name], and Clark Peterson (and i think there's one more of actual legal training, but i forget who it is).



> My reading of those sections is that you can use OGC, but are not required to declare your own product as OGC.  OGC material used must be declared in the license, but remains OGC.  You are also required to include a copy of the license with any products that uses OGC.
> 
> Of course, the word _derivative_ is ambiguous, so I may have misinterpreted what you meant by it.  My interpretation of what you're saying is that pretty much anything that uses the SRD is a derivative of it and hence is required to be OGC - and that doesn't seem right.  Excsue me if I'm just being dumb and that isn't what you meant.




The license seems to revolve around derivative elements, not derivative works. So, if you use the OGC troll stats to create a cyber-troll, you have to make the cyber-troll OGC. Now, some have argued that anything compatible with D20 System mechanics is using D20 System mechanics, and anything using them must therefore be derivative of them, and that therefore any D20 System product must make all rules OGC, because they're all derivative. With the possible exception of those that have a clear prior history elsewhere (such as the starship construction rules in T20)--though some have even argued that simply making them compatible makes them "derivative" of D20 System. Personally, i don't buy that--i think you could make, say, a completely new magic system and make it not-OGC, but it's not clear.

So, the license is viral but not infectious--once something is OGC, it not only remains OGC, but anything derived from it must also be OGC; but an entire work isn't required to be OGC just because it has some OGC in it.


----------



## elijah snow (Apr 13, 2004)

This sounds like a great project.  Is there an update on the status of it?


----------



## CRGreathouse (Apr 13, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Go to the Open Gaming Foundation (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org) and sign up to the ogf-l list, and read the archives. It was a *long* discussion, over several months, if not years. Pay special attention to Ryan Dancey, Alec [forgot-his-last-name], and Clark Peterson (and i think there's one more of actual legal training, but i forget who it is).




I believe the archives are down (and have been for a few weeks now).



			
				woodelf said:
			
		

> So, the license is viral but not infectious--once something is OGC, it not only remains OGC, but anything derived from it must also be OGC; but an entire work isn't required to be OGC just because it has some OGC in it.




(As a nitpick) If you own the rights to the material in question, though, you can stop marking the content OGC.  That is, if you write a story unrelated to other content (not using, say, dwarven urgroshes) and mark it OGC, you could later publish it without the OGL.  Similarly, if someone wrote an OGC story based on the OGC story above *and then bought the rights to the first story*, they could distribute it without the OGL.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 13, 2004)

To the question of artwork, as someone involved in creating one of the online SRDs that includes artwork:

Modern SRD

I included the images of the Basic Classes on my pages. There is a clear note on the front page of the SRD that those images are the property of Wizards of the Coast, and they indeed contacted me and said, "We'll let you keep those images up for now, but don't include any more, and don't be surprised if we ask you to remove them at some point in the future."

Which I thought was very fair of them.

So I would suggest keeping any images out of a UA online project.

Oh, and I want one. Now. Who's on top of this?


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Apr 14, 2004)

Has anyone been doing this lately?


----------



## woodelf (Apr 14, 2004)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Has anyone been doing this lately?




I'll reiterate: i'll do all the hard work (editing, formatting/layout), but i don't own the book, so someone else is gonna have to scan & OCR it, first. I haven't heard anybody volunteer to do that part.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 15, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> I'll reiterate: i'll do all the hard work (editing, formatting/layout), but i don't own the book, so someone else is gonna have to scan & OCR it, first. I haven't heard anybody volunteer to do that part.



Isn't that because scanning/OCR'ing it and then sending it to you _without_ editing out the PI and Closed material _first_ an OGL violation?  Whomever did the scanning would have to make it a legal-copy before sending it to you or anyone else; they make a mistake and that copy got into circulation, liability to WotC would be an issue.

I don't have a scanner, or I would volunteer for the task.  But I don't so I can't.

On the other hand...

I'd volunteer to transcribe an OGL-friendly section, however; I do it for d20X a bit, already, as well as for my own material, so I've got experience in "getting it right".  I'm not keen on transcribing _all_ of UA, however, being that I'm only using a few parts of it and it's not exactly a small book.

I can also set up a private message board for volunteers to discuss issues and post their transcriptions for compiling them together.  I just don't want to set it up and be left sitting there by myself with my thumb...  Well, you can imagine what I mean, so I'll leave it at that.

So, how about it..?  Can we get 3-5 more people to indicate their interest in volunteering now so I know setting up the message board is worth it?


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 15, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> I'd volunteer to transcribe an OGL-friendly section, however; I do it for d20X a bit, already, as well as for my own material, so I've got experience in "getting it right". I'm not keen on transcribing _all_ of UA, however, being that I'm only using a few parts of it and it's not exactly a small book.



I just dicovered thi thread, and I think I can help.

I've got the following sections fully transcribed, OGL-compliant and in RTF format:

1. Bloodlines (no Yuan-ti, naturally)
2. Alternate classes (All of them; both in UA summary form and in complete SRD class-listing format)
3. Weapon Group feats
4. Generic classes
5. Gestalt classes.
6. Action point system

I plan to eventually transcribe all the alt.rules I find useful (75% of the book). 

It never occurred to me to share it---and I'm still unclear about the legalities involved. I'd love to help if I could.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 15, 2004)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I've got the following sections fully transcribed, OGL-compliant and in RTF format:
> 
> 2. Alternate classes (All of them; both in UA summary form and in complete SRD class-listing format)
> 4. Generic classes
> 6. Action point system



See how much work you've just saved _me_?

The "legalities" is one of the reasons I'm willing to set up a private forum; We can "get it wrong" in private and fix any errors prior to releasing it in public.


----------



## Wasgo (Apr 15, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> I'll reiterate: i'll do all the hard work (editing, formatting/layout), but i don't own the book, so someone else is gonna have to scan & OCR it, first. I haven't heard anybody volunteer to do that part.




If t hasn't been done by May, I'll give it a go. Just have exams first.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Apr 15, 2004)

Same here. After May I'd love to help, and I'll probably have the book by then to transcribe from.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 15, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> See how much work you've just saved _me_?
> 
> The "legalities" is one of the reasons I'm willing to set up a private forum; We can "get it wrong" in private and fix any errors prior to releasing it in public.



Cool.

Let me know what I can do to help.


----------



## johnsemlak (Apr 15, 2004)

I've got a question about UA

From WotC's point of view, what is the difference between releasing UA as a book with the OGL in it, and releasing the material as OGC in the SRD?  Why did WotC opt to do what they did.


----------



## Dogbrain (Apr 15, 2004)

> "Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.




Note that, except for "any additional content clearly identified as "Open Game Content", the definition of "Open Game Content" is extremely close to what the US copyright office has been using as a definition of "game rules".  For many decades, perhaps more than a century, it has been an established principle that game rules are not subject to copyright, merely the text describing them.

I quote the relevant US government information:



> Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.




Now, "game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines" (OGL) certainly is equivalent to "idea, system, method, device".  However, the specific text published would correspond to "the particular manner of an author’s expression", unless it could be shown that there was only one way to "express" the "idea, system, method, device", at which point the "expression" could no longer be copyright protected.

The difference between the Hasbro/Hasbro flunky license and going the "game rules non-copyright" route is that the Hasbro flunky license permits one to directly lift and publish another's copyrightable text.  Given that rewriting reams of rules is a major hassle, a small-time operator can benefit greatly from the opportunity to legally cut-and-paste appropriate lines of text from the SRD or SRDs used.


----------



## Dogbrain (Apr 15, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> I've got a question about UA
> 
> From WotC's point of view, what is the difference between releasing UA as a book with the OGL in it, and releasing the material as OGC in the SRD?  Why did WotC opt to do what they did.





From Hasbro's point of view, the difference is that anybody who wants to get a tiny little bit of information in UA has to buy the whole book.  Unlike the PHB/DMG/MM, UA is chock-full-o-useless stuff, but which parts are useless will be different for each potential customer.  Releasing it as OGC online would mean that people would have a very easy time simply cherry-picking out what they want and not bothering with the reast.  Publishing it conventionally without an SRD release means that anybody with interest has to buy a copy or at least know someone who has bought a copy.

However, people are now generating an SRD for UA (which the OGL permits them to do).  We'll have to wait and see if Hasbro is willing to abide by the terms of its own license scheme.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 15, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> I've got a question about UA
> 
> From WotC's point of view, what is the difference between releasing UA as a book with the OGL in it, and releasing the material as OGC in the SRD? Why did WotC opt to do what they did.



In addition to what Dogbrain posted, I'd add that it's also a question of "muddying" the waters of the SRD...  That is, the SRD is "The Core" while UA is a collection of variants and options.  Granted, they _could_ have released a "side" document, but they certainly didn't have to (and, to be perfectly honest, I'd be more up on them getting around to updating the Psionics SRD documents than UA).


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 15, 2004)

Wormwood, I'd be ever so obliged if you would send a copy of your transcribed sections to me.

roarerbull at yahoo dot com


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 16, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> In addition to what Dogbrain posted, I'd add that it's also a question of "muddying" the waters of the SRD...  That is, the SRD is "The Core" while UA is a collection of variants and options.  Granted, they _could_ have released a "side" document, but they certainly didn't have to (and, to be perfectly honest, I'd be more up on them getting around to updating the Psionics SRD documents than UA).



It's kinda hard to consider the SRD as the "core" when they've already added material from the _Epic-Level Handbook_ (above and beyond the rules from 3.5e core rulebooks) and _Psionic's Handbook_ (with _XPsiHB_ material to follow).

Why don't they release it as a copyrighted book? Well, some of the variant rules are already OGC derived from third-party sources (e.g., Injury System is derivative of Damage Saving Throw System from _Mutants & Masterminds_).

As for being useless, to each his or her own. Not all _D&D_ games are alike. But for third-party publishers, they can finally take advantage of some of the mechanics that were copyrighted and off-limit (unless you get permission like AEG did), like the VP/WP system.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Apr 16, 2004)

*snip*


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 16, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> It's kinda hard to consider the SRD as the "core" when they've already added material from the _Epic-Level Handbook_ (above and beyond the rules from 3.5e core rulebooks) and _Psionic's Handbook_ (with _XPsiHB_ material to follow).



And _Manual of the Planes_, but I'd say it's still "core"...  The core "base" rules, the core "psionics" rules, the core "planar" rules, the core "post-20th Level" rules, etc.  The most seperation these rules really have is a prefix at the beginning of the file name; otherwise, all of these rules are handled under the same line in Section 15.



> Why don't they release it as a copyrighted book? Well, some of the variant rules are already OGC derived from third-party sources (e.g., Injury System is derivative of Damage Saving Throw System from _Mutants & Masterminds_).



True.  Including UA into the SRD would bring M&M and _Swords of Our Fathers_ (and the Modern SRD!) into the Section 15 of _every_ derivitive work thereafter, regardless of whether _any_ of these options are used within the product.



> As for being useless, to each his or her own. Not all _D&D_ games are alike. But for third-party publishers, they can finally take advantage of some of the mechanics that were copyrighted and off-limit (unless you get permission like AEG did), like the VP/WP system.



And insanity!

Now, if we can just get Oriental and Deity rules in there...


----------



## Breakdaddy (Apr 16, 2004)

I have OCR'd AU for personal use from my copy and have it on my hard drive. Its almost 11 megs. Unfortunately, it is completely unedited and would probably be illegal for me to transmit to you (especially since you don't own a copy of the book). I might be wrong here, but I'm not completely sure. I don't know the OGL that well.


edit: spelings!!111


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 16, 2004)

Update. I've finished transcribing the follwing sections (corresponding to the UA table of contents):

1. Races
 a. Bloodlines
 b. Racial Paragon Classes
2. Classes
 a. Variant Character Classes
 b. Specialist Wizard Variants
 c. Spontaneous Divine Casters
 d. Class Feature Variants 
3. Characters
 a. Weapon Group Feats

I expect the Character section to be complete tomorrow, as well as the majority of the following section. 

And no, I don't know why I'm doing this.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 16, 2004)

Alrighty...  I'll start doing Insanity tonight.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 16, 2004)

Hmm... Strange, people seem to forget so quickly...

As i've said in the past, i've already scanned, OCRed, edited, layed out, pdfed all the OGC from UA. And i'll release it as soon as six months have passed since the release of UA by WotC, because i don't want to bite the hand that feeds me OGC.

If someone releases the UA material before that time as OGC, i will release it as well, probably only a lot more attractive ;-) So, why bother doing all the work someone already has done? Just have some bloody patience...

Example layout:
http://www.TheHelix.nl/Epic_Spells.pdf


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 16, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> So, why bother doing all the work someone already has done? Just have some bloody patience...



1. Because I _enjoy _doing the work. I'm perverse that way.
2. Because I'm using my transcription files in a game I'm currently working on. Couldn't wait.
3. OCR is wonderful, and I'm sure your pages look awesome. I truly look forward to seeing your efforts---but my needs were a little different (see attachment):

[Edit: Removed the attatchment.]


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 16, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> So, why bother doing all the work someone already has done? Just have some bloody patience...





			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> 2. Because I'm using my transcription files in a game I'm currently working on. Couldn't wait.



That would be the primary reason for me.

Now, if you (Cergorach) would be kind enough to copy/paste requested parts (i.e., kindly send me Environmental Races, the alt. Classes, Prestige Classes, Generic Classes, Complex Skill Checks, Character Background, Action Points, Combat Facing, Metamagic Components, Legendary Weapons, Incantations, Reputation, Honor, Taint, and Sanity) so that I don't have to do all the extra work _or_ wait another 4-5 months to implement them into the Aedon Beta, than it would indeed be a waste of time for me to do so.  But as my group wants to implement these _now_, I have to do the work _now_.

S'what do ya say?  (wink wink nudge nudge)


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Apr 16, 2004)

I just got paid for some work I did a while back, so I ordered UA. I'm thinking it won't be necessary now, but if it is I can transcribe some chapters when I get it in a couple days.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 16, 2004)

Well, you could ask WotC nicely...
I on the otherhand I try to do what i say, sorry...


----------



## Andy_Collins (Apr 16, 2004)

Speaking as one of the authors of Unearthed Arcana, it seems to me a little petty to simply scan/retype the entire product and make it available for free to anyone who wants it. That, I would say, is hardly in the spirit of the d20 license or the Open Gaming movement.

We made UA open content to encourage publishers to try out some new rules in their products, as well as to recognize some exciting concepts pioneered by other companies, not so that people could abuse that generosity by getting 95% of the book for free.

Would you scan and distribute a Malhavoc product, or a Green Ronin product, or a Bastion product? They're all just as open as UA, but I'd hazard a guess that the authors and publishers wouldn't appreciate that either.

If a d20 publisher wanted to use some of UA's open content, I'd imagine that we'd be willing to work with them to get the relevant material (particularly the longer sections). Obviously, I can't speak for the company, but in such a case, I'd recommend contacting Andy Smith on the D&D Business Team to explain your needs.


----------



## JPL (Apr 16, 2004)

Edit:  nah, forget it.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 16, 2004)

Andy_Collins said:
			
		

> Speaking as one of the authors of Unearthed Arcana, it seems to me a little petty to simply scan/retype the entire product and make it available for free to anyone who wants it. That, I would say, is hardly in the spirit of the d20 license or the Open Gaming movement.



There's also the idea of getting this material into our house rules and more thouroughly intergrated with the rest of the components.  Considering the list I posted above (Environmental Races, the alt. Classes, Prestige Classes, Generic Classes, Complex Skill Checks, Character Background, Action Points, Combat Facing, Metamagic Components, Legendary Weapons, Incantations, Reputation, Honor, Taint, and Sanity), that's _a lot_ of typing time that could be saved and put into other pursuits if someone else has already done the job.

In addition, the presence of the SRD hasn't seemed to hurt WotC's sales overly much.

Yes, some people will likely use the project to avoid buying UA, but of them, how many were going to pay for it to begin with?  When you consider the number of people that would "do without" and the people that would obtain illegal copies, the impact of sales gets smaller and smaller.  Heck, this may even cause the (rare, I admit) chance that someone who doesn't think the book is "worth it" will see the material and decide that it is.



> We made UA open content to encourage publishers to try out some new rules in their products, as well as to recognize some exciting concepts pioneered by other companies, not so that people could abuse that generosity by getting 95% of the book for free.



Actually, UA was the first WotC book I've bought since BoVD, reason being the lack of OGL'd products from WotC (no, I'm _not_ ripping on them for not having more Open material, as it's their property and their right, only that it effects my purchasing).

Will _some_ people use it for that?  Yes...  But see above.



> Would you scan and distribute a Malhavoc product, or a Green Ronin product, or a Bastion product? They're all just as open as UA, but I'd hazard a guess that the authors and publishers wouldn't appreciate that either.



The material I'd actually use, yes.  To which, that is about what I would be contributing to this (as well as what I already contribute to d20X): Material I'm using and thus will already be transcribing (or cut/paste from a pdf) for my own purposes (heck, my Section 15 is a half-page long as-is and I'm just getting warmed up).

When one considers how many people transcribe, scan, or copy/paste already for their own purposes, I'm surprised such "mini" SRDs don't already exist.  Consequently, I do believe that there is a Midnight SRD project underway (there was a thread on it here, I believe, though I never read it).



> If a d20 publisher wanted to use some of UA's open content, I'd imagine that we'd be willing to work with them to get the relevant material (particularly the longer sections). Obviously, I can't speak for the company, but in such a case, I'd recommend contacting Andy Smith on the D&D Business Team to explain your needs.



That's a lot of requests that Andy would be receiving.  He'd either be sending out whole-copies to everyone or spending a significant amount of time doing short-order cut/paste(both of which would likely end-up in circulation eventually).  And if the material is going to be given away so freely, why not upload it to the SRD page as a stand-alone SRD expansion?  Would certainly save Andy a lot of trouble.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 16, 2004)

Andy_Collins said:
			
		

> Speaking as one of the authors of Unearthed Arcana, it seems to me a little petty to simply scan/retype the entire product and make it available for free to anyone who wants it. That, I would say, is hardly in the spirit of the d20 license or the Open Gaming movement.
> 
> We made UA open content to encourage publishers to try out some new rules in their products, as well as to recognize some exciting concepts pioneered by other companies, not so that people could abuse that generosity by getting 95% of the book for free.
> 
> ...




Andy, WotC modeled the OGL after the GPL, most GPL products are available for 'free'. So, please don't start about the spirit of things, WotC saw a business opertunity in Open Source, these are the consequences...

Now, i try my best to ensure that the product gets a good six months run before the OGC is released from the product, this should cover around 85% of the initial sales. We could have legally released the OGC parts within a day of it's release, we didn't, we don't really want to alienate a publisher (the hand that feeds us OGC).

Actually i'm bussy with the OGC from Green Ronin's Book of the Righteous, great stuff, still working on the 3.5 conversion for it. As for Malhavoc, getting there, it's just that some of the older products from Malhavoc have a ***** of an OGC designation and it takes a while digging true there. You should see a release of OGC in the next few months...

It's not about screwing publishers, it's about the 'spirit' of Open Source. First you make sure what's Open is available for easy access (text files online), second it's about building a better product from that Open Content, third it's about filling the holes that the available Open Content doesn't cover and see what you can do better.

I personally think that releasing OGC online after a certain period of time (six months to a year) might give a product a new influx of potential buyers. Come on, a 224 page full color, hardcover book for only $35 or $24.50 from Amazon.com is a steal. If people are really going to use a lot of material from the book, i'm sure they'll buy it and not mess around with a pile of b&w printouts.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 16, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> I on the otherhand I try to do what i say, sorry...



No problems...  We have a "6 month buffer" at d20X as well.  This one's personal, though.


----------



## Grazzt (Apr 16, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> I've got a question about UA
> 
> From WotC's point of view, what is the difference between releasing UA as a book with the OGL in it, and releasing the material as OGC in the SRD?  Why did WotC opt to do what they did.





Money. Money is made off the books when peeps buy it. If they simply posted it on the web in the SRD they wouldn't make any coin because it would be available for free. Probably one reason you don't see it the content in the SRD...it would cut into sales. Why buy the book if you can get the main parts of it for free? And yes, I know the major parts of the DMG, MM, and PH are in (or are) the SRD...but those are core rules...everyone wants to own a nice shiny core rulebook.


----------



## Wasgo (Apr 16, 2004)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Money. Money is made off the books when peeps buy it. If they simply posted it on the web in the SRD they wouldn't make any coin because it would be available for free. Probably one reason you don't see it the content in the SRD...it would cut into sales. Why buy the book if you can get the main parts of it for free? And yes, I know the major parts of the DMG, MM, and PH are in (or are) the SRD...but those are core rules...everyone wants to own a nice shiny core rulebook.




Plus you tend to need the full books. With Unearthed Arcana, you could easily grab whichever variant rules you needed without getting the whole book. Either way, Andy is right. Just because it OGL and it's WotC, doesn't mean the whole book should be posted on the web.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 16, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> Andy, WotC modeled the OGL after the GPL, most GPL products are available for 'free'. So, please don't start about the spirit of things, WotC saw a business opertunity in Open Source, these are the consequences...



With all due respect, OGL and GPL are two different licenses, even though both derived on the concept of Open Source.

You want to know more of what the OGL is intended, contact Ryan Dancey, the person responsible for this movement.

As for the "spirit" of Open Source, I don't see how you could proclaim yourself an advocate. No offense intended. The only recognized advocate for OGL is Ryan Dancey.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 16, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> With all due respect, OGL and GPL are two different licenses, even though both derived on the concept of Open Source.



They sure are two seperate licenses, but...
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/foundation.html
Exact quote:
The Open Gaming concept is based on the Free Software GNU General Public License created by the GNU Project.
General Public License as in GPL.


			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> You want to know more of what the OGL is intended, contact Ryan Dancey, the person responsible for this movement.



Well, i don't know what Ryan intended with the OGL, maybe he can't even discuss what he intended. But what do you expect if you base your concepts on a well established concept that promotes open content for all (possible) contributors...
Quote from OpenGamingFoundation:
Game Rules and materials that use those rules that can be freely copied, modified and distributed.


			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> As for the "spirit" of Open Source, I don't see how you could proclaim yourself an advocate. No offense intended. The only recognized advocate for OGL is Ryan Dancey.



What the bloody hell is a 'recognized advocate' or even an 'advocate' of Open Source or OGL? I understand the Open Source 'concept', whether it's OGL or GPL, i understand the consequences, and i like it. I'm willing to promote it, does that make me an 'advocate' , i certainly hope not, i hate that term ;-) But does that make my opinion invalid? I certainly hope not!


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 16, 2004)

There is no "spirit" to the OGL. It is a legal document. If you decide to release material using it, you agree to abide by all the conditions within it. If you're not prepared to have someone create and distribute (say) a pdf containing your OGC, then don't release your material as OGC.

It's NICE that people are trying to provide a window for sales. Just like it's NICE, for example, that my online copy of the Modern SRD encourages people to buy the book. I don't need to do that, however. The legal document under which the Modern SRD was released doesn't require me to do that at all. I do it because I want WotC to succeed.

I find Andy Collins' post a little strange, to be honest. The content of the book was released as open, so complaining that people treat it as such seems, well, weird.

I posted a goodly amount of _Skull and Bones_ open content on my pirate campaign's website, for example, and made that available to people all across the web. I'm allowed to. It says so in the Open Gaming License.

Take it as a great compliment that people want to distribute your work so widely. That means many people perceive it as valuable.

Just my thoughts on the issue.


----------



## Planesdragon (Apr 16, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> You want to know more of what the OGL is intended, contact Ryan Dancey, the person responsible for this movement.



 We've discussed this very issue at least three times on ogf-l--the list Ryan administers, where we tore apart each draft of the OGL.  Each time, we came to roughly the same conclusion: don't worry about the legal copying.  Assume that it will happen, and plan accordingly.

 The people who would download and use a 100% legal OGC extract from Unearthed Arcana without buying the book are the same people who would download a 0% legal PDF scan of Unearthed Arcana from a P2P network.  If they're not going to buy the book, they won't buy the book--and it's not worth it to disrupt your product enough to stop the 'pirates', because they will break just about anything that you do.


 Taking off my FGA-advocate hat, I suspect that WotC released Unearthed Arcana with the OGL to see if they would get a sales spike as opposed to what their projections were.  Hopefully, they'll see just such a spike--and they'll do the same for other rules-heavy books in the future.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 16, 2004)

Andy_Collins said:
			
		

> Speaking as one of the authors of Unearthed Arcana, it seems to me a little petty to simply scan/retype the entire product and make it available for free to anyone who wants it. That, I would say, is hardly in the spirit of the d20 license or the Open Gaming movement.



I honestly never considered that.

Now I feel like a jerk, so I'm going to keep my files private from now on.*

My apologies.

*That is, until I complete my amazingly cool d20 project: the long-awaited _CyberKatana 2000!_


----------



## jeffh (Apr 17, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> It's kinda hard to consider the SRD as the "core" when they've already added material from the _Epic-Level Handbook_ (above and beyond the rules from 3.5e core rulebooks) and _Psionic's Handbook_ (with _XPsiHB_ material to follow).




The Planes and the epic-level stuff are in the 3.5 DMG.  As far as I am aware, *that* is the only reason they're in the SRD.  Or is there material (besides psionics) in the SRD that isn't in the 3.5 core books, and if so, what specifically?


----------



## jgbrowning (Apr 17, 2004)

I think there's a monster called "Avoral" and one called "Bralani" that are in the SRD but not in any book. I could be wrong.

joe b.


----------



## Voadam (Apr 17, 2004)

jeffh said:
			
		

> The Planes and the epic-level stuff are in the 3.5 DMG.  As far as I am aware, *that* is the only reason they're in the SRD.  Or is there material (besides psionics) in the SRD that isn't in the 3.5 core books, and if so, what specifically?




No, there is more epic level stuff (epic monsters, epic class progressions spelled out, epic spells, etc.) from the Epic level handbook that was added after the full 3.5 core book portion (which also included a small bit of epic content that was now in the 3.5 DMG). It is in the section on the wizards srd site titled EPIC.

There is also the 3.0 psionics material including revisions to prestige class progressions.


----------



## Voadam (Apr 17, 2004)

Andy_Collins said:
			
		

> Speaking as one of the authors of Unearthed Arcana, it seems to me a little petty to simply scan/retype the entire product and make it available for free to anyone who wants it. That, I would say, is hardly in the spirit of the d20 license or the Open Gaming movement.
> 
> We made UA open content to encourage publishers to try out some new rules in their products, as well as to recognize some exciting concepts pioneered by other companies, not so that people could abuse that generosity by getting 95% of the book for free.
> 
> ...




So does this mean WotC will definitely not be adding the UA onto the srd?

The online srd is a great reference tool for PBP and e-mail D&D gaming, it would be a great boon to have the rules from UA there as well ready to reference from Wizard's site. I know I've already got an UA spontaneous casting cleric on a PBP game on this site and I would find it useful to not have to pull out the book or ask in a forum for specific rules when I do not have the book handy.

By the way, I think that is one of the best variants in the book.


----------



## Dogbrain (Apr 17, 2004)

Planesdragon said:
			
		

> The people who would download and use a 100% legal OGC extract from Unearthed Arcana without buying the book are the same people who would download a 0% legal PDF scan of Unearthed Arcana from a P2P network.





Wrong.  I would not steal a book, but if a book is released under such a license as the OGL, it's not stealing--it has been EXPLICITLY RELEASED for re-use and re-distribution through all sorts of unofficial channels, so long as the OGL is adhered to.  If you can't handle the reality of that, don't use the OGL.  The terms are quite plain, and you are free not to use the license.


----------



## Darkness (Apr 17, 2004)

Planesdragon, Dogbrain, everyone else -

Folks, please stick to the topic at hand and don't drift into a piracy debate; these tend to derail threads and end in flames.

Thanks.

- Darkness,
moderator


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 17, 2004)

jeffh said:
			
		

> The Planes and the epic-level stuff are in the 3.5 DMG.  As far as I am aware, *that* is the only reason they're in the SRD.  Or is there material (besides psionics) in the SRD that isn't in the 3.5 core books, and if so, what specifically?



I believe they went beyond the scope of what the three 3.5e core rulebooks have presented and added those from _Epic-Level Handbook._

And refresh my memory but I never considered the _Psionic's Handbook_ the fourth core rulebook. But it's there so Bruce Cordell could write the _If Thoughts Could Kill_ book (published by Malhavoc Press). OBTW, in a month or so, expect the copyrighted material from the _Expanded Psionic's Handbook_ to update the old material in the SRD ... at least according to the guy-in-charge of WotC's SRD, Andy Smith.

P.S. Still waiting for him to add _Oriental Adventures_ material.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 17, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> P.S. Still waiting for him to add _Oriental Adventures_ material.




And _Deities and Demigods_ material, which was supposed to follow shortly after the epic material.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 17, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Still waiting for him to add _Oriental Adventures_ material.



Yeah, i was curious about that as well, was it 'promised' to be added just like the _Deities and Demigods_ material?


----------



## Fester (Apr 17, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> There is no "spirit" to the OGL. It is a legal document. If you decide to release material using it, you agree to abide by all the conditions within it. If you're not prepared to have someone create and distribute (say) a pdf containing your OGC, then don't release your material as OGC.




Yes, that pretty much sums up my opinion about it also.  The "spirit" is with the people like *Cergorach* who actually go out of their way to be fair.

I've been lurking on the ogf-l mailing list and I would guess that this is what they would call crippled OGC - it's open, but it's not freely available.  Nobody wants to see WotC not making money from their products (I have certainly purchased a copy of UA) and nobody wants to see WotC stop releasing their products under the OGL, but you can't tell people they're behaving badly when all they're doing is abidding by the rules as set in the OGL, which (AFAIK) WotC actually own.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Apr 17, 2004)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I honestly never considered that.
> 
> Now I feel like a jerk, so I'm going to keep my files private from now on.
> 
> My apologies.




I also feel like a jerk. Apology here as well.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 17, 2004)

Fester said:
			
		

> I've been lurking on the ogf-l mailing list and I would guess that this is what they would call crippled OGC - it's open, but it's not freely available.



Actually, no, this isn't "crippled" OGC.  Crippled OGC is when re-use is made less viable.  There are also "degrees" of crippled...  For example:

*Name Identity Claims:* "All Spells, Feats, Classes, and Prestige Classes are OGC; All names of Spells, Feats, Classes, and Prestige Classes is Product Identity."
The problem with Name Identity is that there is no difference between "Festers Big Boom Boom Spell" and "Big Boom Boom Spell", as both are declared "off limits".  The debate with this is whether or not "Big Boom Boom Spell" is something the _should_ qualify as PI (although, under the current license, it _does_ qualify).

*Closed Text:* "All rules are Open Game Content; All text used within the book is closed."
This means that anything not directly mechanical in nature must be re-written in order to be re-used legally.

Neither of these are the case with UA, which is actually quite generous aside from certain elements that WotC has choosen not to release (ex: Mind Flayers), as is their right.

A number of people complain about "crippled OGC", but I don't let it phase me.  If something requires extensive re-write the become usable, than that's what it takes.  I either re-write it or rename it (making _that_ OGC, thus giving it "legs") or I don't.  After all, 9 times out of 10 I have to transcribe that material from hard-copy to computer, and I've found that there is little difference between transcribing word-for-word or re-wording as I go.


----------



## blackshirt5 (Apr 17, 2004)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I just dicovered thi thread, and I think I can help.
> 
> I've got the following sections fully transcribed, OGL-compliant and in RTF format:
> 
> ...



 Hey Wormwood, could I get a copy of that?  Email it to blackshirt52002@yahoo.com Thanks in advance!


----------



## Darkness (Apr 17, 2004)

blackshirt5 said:
			
		

> Hey Wormwood, could I get a copy of that?



 Don't get your hopes up, mate: 


			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> I honestly never considered that.
> 
> Now I feel like a jerk, so I'm going to keep my files private from now on.
> 
> My apologies.


----------



## blackshirt5 (Apr 17, 2004)

Darkness said:
			
		

> Don't get your hopes up, mate:



 Yeah, I just caught up to that.  Oh well, it's just not my day today.


----------



## jaerdaph (Apr 17, 2004)

I just want to thank everyone here for making it highly unlikely for WotC to release any more material under the OGL, and possibly even consider keeping D&D 4.0 closed as well.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 17, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> As for the "spirit" of Open Source, I don't see how you could proclaim yourself an advocate. No offense intended. The only recognized advocate for OGL is Ryan Dancey.



Actually, going back to this point, wasn't it Ryan Dancey himself that, in early-January, was talking about an SRD+ project, one that would take the SRD and add-in material from a multitude of sources into one large depository of OGC?

The OGF-L Server Archives aren't functioning at the moment, otherwise I'd link to his original e-mail on the subject, but you'll likely recall the conversation.  Indeed, it was the end-result of that conversation that got me involved in d20X*, which isn't the same thing as an SRD+ depository, but is developed with the same principle in mind: That OGC, once released, is nothing more than OGC and may be copied, shared, and altered as the re-user desires within the bounds of the OGL.

* Plug: The d20Exchange is a depository of submitted OGC that anyone can contribute to.  Essentially, if you are the sort that transcribes material from one source for your own personal use, than you've got something to contribute: The transcribed rules.  Anyone curious about this can email me for more information.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 17, 2004)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> I just want to thank everyone here for making it highly unlikely for WotC to release any more material under the OGL, and possibly even consider keeping D&D 4.0 closed as well.



If they closed D&D 4E they would alienate a lot of publishers and with them a lot of customers. Also, chances are that when there's actually a movement that collects and distributes OGC, the changes that will happen from 3.5 to 4.0 should be easy to incorporate in the excisting OGC.

A sidenote: I think that if WotC wanted to exeriment with OGC, they should have used a different book than UA. UA as a product has very little value to 80% of the consumers, even when people see something usefull, it will only be a very small part of the book. IMHO they should have used that Exalted book as the experiment and should have been a bit less enthausiastic with the OGC designation.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 17, 2004)

*Well, you're welcome*



			
				jaerdaph said:
			
		

> I just want to thank everyone here for making it highly unlikely for WotC to release any more material under the OGL, and possibly even consider keeping D&D 4.0 closed as well.




Well, I think everyone is happy that they made your day.

In my opionion, releasing OGC and then hoping people won't share it, use it, retype it or whatever, is an exercise in futility.

Also, having the strategy of open gaming content rely on hopes that people don't share material that they have an explicit right to share, is also probably not a very good idea.

The material is out there. It can be shared, retyped, re-published, what have you.

If WotC (and not only Andy Collins) is surprised and disappointed by this, and if this in itself would lead to the cancellation of the OGL, I think it's high time they went throught with it and cancelled the OGL altogether. And it's better for us to know now, than later.

Because if anyone release OGC, they have to expect people to re-publish it. 

If WotC is disappointed that this is happening, then I don't really see what they are expecting of us, since they allow us to use the material, but lays a guilt trip on us if we do.

Cheers!

Maggan


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 17, 2004)

Maggan said:
			
		

> If WotC (and not only Andy Collins) is surprised and disappointed by this, and if this in itself would lead to the cancellation of the OGL, I think it's high time they went throught with it and cancelled the OGL altogether. And it's better for us to know now, than later.



Well, they can't 'cancel' the OGL, they could possibly 'cancel' the D20 license (not sure here), but OGC is OGG. Even if Hasbro somehow decided to stop producing D&D we can always use the SRD rules and OGC, publishers can keep on releasing under the OGL.

Ryan is my personal hero because he got WotC brass so far as to release the  SRD under the OGL. I tell you, that man can sell an iceberg to an eskimo! ;-)


----------



## reiella (Apr 17, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I believe they went beyond the scope of what the three 3.5e core rulebooks have presented and added those from _Epic-Level Handbook._
> 
> And refresh my memory but I never considered the _Psionic's Handbook_ the fourth core rulebook. But it's there so Bruce Cordell could write the _If Thoughts Could Kill_ book (published by Malhavoc Press). OBTW, in a month or so, expect the copyrighted material from the _Expanded Psionic's Handbook_ to update the old material in the SRD ... at least according to the guy-in-charge of WotC's SRD, Andy Smith.
> 
> P.S. Still waiting for him to add _Oriental Adventures_ material.




It was added to the SRD because it was a product line that would not recieve adventure/content support from Wizards beyond their web feature [and that they held all the rights to ], and alot of folks wanted it opened up [for psionic influenced adventures, for new psionic powers/abilities/etc].  It wasn't solely [or even mostly] because Bruce wanted to release an adventure and alternate ruleset bundle .


----------



## Psion (Apr 17, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Closed Text:* "All rules are Open Game Content; All text used within the book is closed."
> This means that anything not directly mechanical in nature must be re-written in order to be re-used legally.[/b]




Does someone actually DO that? If so, they really aren't releasing ANY OGC, because you don't need to use a licence to copy rules if you aren't copying text. The copyright courts are pretty explicit on that one.

And if the same product is being released under the d20 STL, they are in violation of it, since they effectively aren't releasing any OGC.



> *A number of people complain about "crippled OGC", but I don't let it phase me.*



*

Hmmm. It bothers me. I mean understand some authors do it out of a concern over control of their property. That's their decision, but I don't have to like it. It is, if anything, against the "spirit of the OGL" if anything is. The point of the OGL is to create a body of work that can be shared and propagate; creating "IP mines" that make it difficult to do this run counter to that effort.

As a consumer, this really doesn't affect me directly that much unless I am feeling like a stickler and releasing my houserules under the OGL (or going pro with it... yeah, right!) It affects other authors, and indirectly affects the fanbase as a whole by limiting the propagation of good rules material into more products.

(Fortunately, one of the big offenders here has backed off on much of this "crippling" in recent products. So I am not as annoyed by this as I once was. The other big offender I stopped buying from so I have no idea if they ever "straightened out". No, I don't care to point fingers; it's the author's decision.)*


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 17, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> (Fortunately, one of the big offenders here has backed off on much of this "crippling" in recent products. So I am not as annoyed by this as I once was. The other big offender I stopped buying from so I have no idea if they ever "straightened out". No, I don't care to point fingers; it's the author's decision.)



Lemme guess, Malhavoc and Mongoose?


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 17, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> A sidenote: I think that if WotC wanted to exeriment with OGC, they should have used a different book than UA. UA as a product has very little value to 80% of the consumers, even when people see something usefull, it will only be a very small part of the book. IMHO they should have used that Exalted book as the experiment and should have been a bit less enthausiastic with the OGC designation.



By contrast, however, I'm already using more from UA than I do from MotP, where as most other WotC books see no use at the table (actually, the only non-OGC material we use is from _Oriental Adventures _and the _Book of Vile Darkness_, plus the monsters from _Manual of the Planes_, all of which we have permission from WotC to reference in our material).  Or, another way to consider it is that, within the next 3-6 months, all of the material I listed earlier _is_ going to be on my website just because it's part of the rules my group uses.  I already have Wounds & Vitality up, and that was up _before_ I actually had my copy of UA because I already knew how W&V worked and the Checklist preview gave me the Section 15, and the Legendary Weapons I was already using via the original source, _Swords of Our Fathers_, so the inclusion of those rules was only coincidence.

(Consequently, the basis of the Legendary Weapons is available, for free, at the website for The Game Mechanics, the folks that wrote it; the rest of the stuff is easily made up on your own.)


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Apr 17, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> Hmm... Strange, people seem to forget so quickly...
> 
> As i've said in the past, i've already scanned, OCRed, edited, layed out, pdfed all the OGC from UA. And i'll release it as soon as six months have passed since the release of UA by WotC, because i don't want to bite the hand that feeds me OGC.
> 
> ...




Hey Cergorach, that looks really good.  Do you distribute that 3.5 SRD?  Because it's a hell of a lot nicer than the rtf version.  If you do distribute it, is there a website?  I look forward to seeing your Unearthed Arcana SRD as well.

I agree with everyone who disagrees with Andy Collins.  If Mr. Collins didn't want SRDs to be written and people to use OGC in their products, why did they make it OGC?  Was it just a marketing experiment?  They seem to be saying now, "well, we made it OGC to make more people buy it, but we don't want it to be OGC anymore, so if you use it, we'll say nasty things about you."

Using this material is perfectly legal, and by the "spirit" of the OGL, we are encouraged to use it.  That's what the OGL is there for in the first place.  It was designed to encourage 3rd party publishers to reproduce the OGC information in their own publications in order to increase the number of OGL products available so that there is no shortage of support for the game.  Because of this, making something OGC is essentially inviting others to use and republish it.

If Wizards doesn't understand this by now, they really ought to get a clue.

An Unearthed Arcana SRD will make it easier for publishers to use UA OGC in their products, something which they are already allowed to do.  It will make it easier for me to use the few things from the book that I want to use, since my current option is to borrow a copy of the book from someone and copy out the relevent sections.  Which I am entitled to do, by virtue of it being OGC.  The issue is one purely of convenience, and nothing else, since the "spirit" of the rules is that if it's OGC, the invitation is open to use and redistribute the material.


----------



## RavenProject (Apr 17, 2004)

Hello there, I'm the webmaster and owner of www.systemreferencedocuments.org. I'd be most delighted to host such a project and if any more help is needed to edit the OCR source, then contact me. Dr. Awkward, I would be happy if you contact me by the time you are ready to release your work. By the way, do you have any other material you could provide me for hosting? The example you posted is awesome.

About the artwork. It is absolutely clear, that the artwork is product identity. A definition of all the things PI can be found on the 2nd page of Unearthed Arcana and it does not only include artwork but names of deities, characters, artifacts, ... and game statistics of several monsters. Sorry if this has already been covered in this thread. I'm currently short on time and not able to read the whole thing.

The same rules apply to the D20 Modern SRD I host.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 17, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> Does someone actually DO that? If so, they really aren't releasing ANY OGC, because you don't need to use a licence to copy rules if you aren't copying text. The copyright courts are pretty explicit on that one.



Well, that was a "summed up" statement, but what you end up with as open is: All Charts, All Tables, All Stat Blocks, Spell Blocks, etc., and the rule itself.  Essentially, it's a simple matter of re-explaining the rule in use.  The rule, and everything about it, is the OGC.



> And if the same product is being released under the d20 STL, they are in violation of it, since they effectively aren't releasing any OGC.



I have considered this as a possibility.  However, in the end, does it effect _me_?  The worst that will happen is they are told to "open it up", while the version I made is already completely open.  It's also an issue of the above list; when you start adding in tables, stat blocks, etc., a product could easily skim the 5% mark with enough spells, monsters, and tables.



> Hmmm. It bothers me. I mean understand some authors do it out of a concern over control of their property. That's their decision, but I don't have to like it. It is, if anything, against the "spirit of the OGL" if anything is. The point of the OGL is to create a body of work that can be shared and propagate; creating "IP mines" that make it difficult to do this run counter to that effort.



Well, I don't think it's against the "spirit" of the OGL; if it has a spirit, it's "share the rules".  What some people are doing is retaining copyright control over their expression.  While they understand that their _rules_ can appear in 50 different products, what they don't want is their _expression_ of that work appearing in 50 different products.  To a degree, I can respect that.

Do I _wish_ they were more open?  Yes.  But I see no reason to be bustin' balls over it.

And, in all honesty, if it _is_ being done to prevent their rules from being re-used, they are really only prolonging the inevitable, assuming the material is good (and if it isn't good, it's protected better than any editing trick coupled with legal mumbo-jumbo can ever hope to accomplish).



> As a consumer, this really doesn't affect me directly that much unless I am feeling like a stickler and releasing my houserules under the OGL...



Like I am.



> ...(or going pro with it... yeah, right!) It affects other authors, and indirectly affects the fanbase as a whole by limiting the propagation of good rules material into more products.



But is this because the OGC is "crippled" or because no one wants to take the time to give it legs?


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 17, 2004)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I agree with everyone who disagrees with Andy Collins. If Mr. Collins didn't want SRDs to be written and people to use OGC in their products, why did they make it OGC? Was it just a marketing experiment? They seem to be saying now, "well, we made it OGC to make more people buy it, but we don't want it to be OGC anymore, so if you use it, we'll say nasty things about you."



First, welcome to ENWorld...

Second, while I agree with your sentiments, you seem to have taken an independant statement from AC as an official statement from WotC, which also seems to have greatly effected the tone of your post.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Apr 17, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> First, welcome to ENWorld...
> 
> Second, while I agree with your sentiments, you seem to have taken an independant statement from AC as an official statement from WotC, which also seems to have greatly effected the tone of your post.




Thank you for the welcome.

Actually, I take it to be an unofficial statement.  Mr. Collins is the first name listed on the cover of the book in question (alphabetically, mind you), and until WotC issues an official statement on the subject, I don't think that it's unreasonable to take the opinion of the authors as representative of the general sentiment going around at the company.  Especially since Mr. Collins' name is on everything they publish these days, indicating that he is a central figure at the company.

If it is practice for game designers to come to these boards and express their personal opinions, which are assumed to be unrelated to the opinions of their respective companies, I'm unfamiliar with that situation.  However, if I'm going to address only Mr. Collins and not WotC with my post, I think that it would rest more or less unchanged...

If you don't want to deal with the OGL, don't release OGC.  If you release OGC, don't be surprised when people treat it like OGC.  You've been at this long enough to know how these things work.  We appreciate things being released as OGC.  It's really handy and it helps to keep this hobby from going under like it almost did under TSR.  But if you're going to turn around and then tell us that we're unethical for treating it like OGC, that's not right, and we're likely to be a bit put-off.


----------



## Zappo (Apr 17, 2004)

Maybe it's only me, but the fact that I had access to the 3.5 SRD didn't prevent me in the least from buying a full set of the 3.5 core books. And a Unearthed Arcana .html wouldn't prevent me in the least from buying the real thing (as soon as they translate it, curse my non-english-speaking players). 
 The books are _shiny_. Oh, so shiny...


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Apr 17, 2004)

I bought the Draconomicon mostly for the artwork...


----------



## nikolai (Apr 17, 2004)

I really hope those trying to make a AU SRD will not be discouraged by the misguided complaints that have reared their heads. I think they're doing a really valuable service to the community. The big tragedy of OGC is that there are no large well designed, edited and organised online rules (except the main SRD). There's material that is explicitly released with permission to distribute it; but is it not being made widely available.

Andy Collins seems to be of the opinion that it is fine for WotC to release OGC of their own free will, thereby adding to the value of their product, but somehow wishes for them to be able to do this without the rules of the OGL applying to them.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 17, 2004)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I bought the Draconomicon mostly for the artwork...



 Yeah, you know, everyone SAYS they "read the articles" but we all know we're buying it for the pictures.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 17, 2004)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Hey Cergorach, that looks really good.  Do you distribute that 3.5 SRD?  Because it's a hell of a lot nicer than the rtf version.  If you do distribute it, is there a website?  I look forward to seeing your Unearthed Arcana SRD as well.



I will, i have currently a number of projects running parralel, so the different chapters of the SRD v.3.5 are in varying stages of completion. I'll take a look tomorrow at what's ready for 'beta' release ;-)

Keep an eye out here: http://www.thehelix.nl/modules.php?name=Downloads

I'm hard at work converting Green Ronin's Holy Warrior to v.3.5, expect to see that soon as well. As well as a god section for the SRD also based on Green Ronin's work.

Some other projects are also in the works, all OGC, everything pdf, everything free:
- An introduction to roleplaying, a 64 page booklet that will give new players everything they need to start a D20 fantasy game. Four basic Character classes (Fighter, Priest, Rogue, Wizard) from levels 1-4, hoping for some professional illustrations in there.
- A classic fantasy setting with high quality maps, backgrounds for races, towns, cities, countries, a continent of OGL material. 
[/blabla]

Oops, sorry got a bit carried away ;-)


----------



## Darkness (Apr 17, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Andy Collins seems to be of the opinion that it is fine for WotC to release OGC of their own free will, thereby adding to the value of their product, but somehow wishes for them to be able to do this without the rules of the OGL applying to them.



 No offense but try to look at this from Andy's perspective as well.

It's a very cool move on WotC's part to make things in UA OGC. IMO, shooting WotC a nice e-mail explaining what you're thinking of might be a better start for this project than saying "ok, let's chop this book up and put it on the web."

Seriously, it's not just about what you _can_ do; it's also about how you're doing it. *shrug* A little politeness can never hurt, can it? 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## jeffh (Apr 18, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I believe they went beyond the scope of what the three 3.5e core rulebooks have presented and added those from _Epic-Level Handbook._
> 
> And refresh my memory but I never considered the _Psionic's Handbook_ the fourth core rulebook. But it's there so Bruce Cordell could write the _If Thoughts Could Kill_ book (published by Malhavoc Press). OBTW, in a month or so, expect the copyrighted material from the _Expanded Psionic's Handbook_ to update the old material in the SRD ... at least according to the guy-in-charge of WotC's SRD, Andy Smith.
> 
> P.S. Still waiting for him to add _Oriental Adventures_ material.




It's possible it does go beyond the core books into the ELH-only stuff; you're the second person to say so since I asked.  I said that would surprise me, and it does, but at this point I'll take your word for it.

And no, I don't really consider psionics core, or at least any more core than, say, Complete Warrior.  Thus the phrase "besides psionics".  

Was Oriental Adventures ever supposed to be in the SRD?  I know the Deities & Demigods stuff was, but I don't know of anyone saying OA would be.  Note, though, that much of that material, or at least stuff very similar to it (and in some cases superior IMO) is open content anyway due to AEG's Rokugan and its various supplements.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 18, 2004)

jeffh said:
			
		

> Note, though, that much of that material, or at least stuff very similar to it (and in some cases superior IMO) is open content anyway due to AEG's Rokugan and its various supplements.



I would agree except:


> Designation of product identity: <snip> any and all material adapted from Oriental Adventures, except material noted in that work as Open Game Content <snip>



The samurai and Shugenja are stated as being adapted from Oriental Adventures.

That's why i'm still hoping on content from OA to be made OGC...


----------



## Kesh (Apr 18, 2004)

Yes, OA was supposed to get into the SRD. And when it does, I hope they incorporate the 3.5 update from _Dragon_ magazine.


----------



## nikolai (Apr 18, 2004)

Darkness said:
			
		

> No offense but try to look at this from Andy's perspective as well.
> 
> It's a very cool move on WotC's part to make things in UA OGC. IMO, shooting WotC a nice e-mail explaining what you're thinking of might be a better start for this project than saying "ok, let's chop this book up and put it on the web."
> 
> Seriously, it's not just about what you _can_ do; it's also about how you're doing it. *shrug* A little politeness can never hurt, can it?




I really think Andy has really done everyone a disservice. Loads of the stuff that really helps my game is provided on the web by fans who do it for free and entirely out of the kindness of their hearts. I'm very grateful for this. The UA SRD would be a fantastic resourse, WotC has explicitly given everyone permission to do this, and a group of people got together to make it happen.

At this point Andy, speaking entirely in a personal capacity, said that they were petty, going against the spirit of open gaming, abusing the generosity of others, and doing something that wasn't appreciated. Others have suggested, in the last couple of pages, that what he said was clueless. But, in spite of this, this appears to have killed the project. Some of those involved have - totally unjustifiably - posted to say they're ashamed and feel like jerks, when they're not.

*Darkness*; I agree with what you say. It is cool for WotC to make things OGC. (Though they had to make some of it OGC, as the book used OGC). I'm all for politeness. It would be cool to send WotC an email, saying what you're doing, and thanking them, even though (or especially since), WotC have said that chunks of UA are Open Game Content and people are free to distribute it. But - as far as I can see - none of that was Andy's point. Andy's point was it is a bad thing for people to make a UA SRD, he's wrong, but even so has still managed to sabotage the project, and make a bunch of people who were trying to do a really neat thing for others feel unreasonably bad about themselves.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 18, 2004)

Is it me or is this detoriating into an Andy is 'evil' thread? Can't a game designer have an opinion that goes against the general concensus without having his head bitten off? Although i don't agree with his point of view, it still is _his_ point of view, gotta have to respect that...


----------



## Wasgo (Apr 18, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I agree with what you say. It is cool for WotC to make things OGC. (Though they had to make some of it OGC, as the book used OGC). I'm all for politeness. It would be cool to send WotC an email, saying what you're doing, and thanking them, even though (or especially since), WotC have said that chunks of UA are Open Game Content and people are free to distribute it. But - as far as I can see - none of that was Andy's point. Andy's point was it is a bad thing for people to make a UA SRD, he's wrong, but even so has still managed to sabotage the project, and make a bunch of people who were trying to do a really neat thing for others feel unreasonably bad about themselves.




Andy isn't saying don't use the OGC, nor is he saying using OGC is bad. He's saying don't take the *WHOLE*  book, which is the hard work of many authors, and potential profit for WotC and post it on the web. Plus he's right...people are treating this book differently because it's Wizards of the Coast. One could easily take the books made by the Game Mechanics, By Green Ronin, by Guardians of Order, by FFG, and everyone else and post almost the whole book on the web. With other companies, there is an acceptance this would be hurting them, but just because it's WotC, no one cares. The book was made OGC to allow other Publishers and Fans to use the mechanics in their own works. The worst part is, if we actually managed to hurt their sales, we'd probably never see any OGC from them again.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 18, 2004)

*No love for you, dr. WotC*



			
				Wasgo said:
			
		

> Plus he's right...people are treating this book differently because it's Wizards of the Coast. One could easily take the books made by the Game Mechanics, By Green Ronin, by Guardians of Order, by FFG, and everyone else and post almost the whole book on the web. With other companies, there is an acceptance this would be hurting them, but just because it's WotC, no one cares.




I think it is a gross generalisation to say that people don't care if WotC is losing money on UA or not. I think there are other factors at work here.

I don't think that people are putting off typing in other companies OGC because of an acceptance that it would hurt said companies. It's just not as high a demand on the OGC stuff they produce.

WotC sells tons of books. Tons and tons and tons of books, compared to everyone else. There will always be a higher demand on WotC OGC, partly because they are the market leader, and partly because WotC OGC is seen as a baseline for d20. So many, many more want that baseline than say... the OGC from Skull&Bones (which is one of my favourite books, and almost all of it OGC).

Just for the record, btw. I'm against posting the whole book on the web, such as in the form of a scan. But I support extracting the OGC, retyping it and then publising that on, say, the web.

UA is a rad book. I have it, I bought it as soon as it hit the shelf. I don't think making the OGC available as a pdf will impact sales. People want books, not pdf:s. At least that's what we've been hearing in the thread on best-selling d20 supplements.

I also think that those people that are compiling pdf:s with the 3.5 baseline, including the UA stuff, is doing the community a great favour. I hope they don't stop doing that. They have my support.

As does WotC. I love 3.5, I love UA. I think Andy Collins is doing a fine job on D&D.

For me, those two sentiments does not exclude each other. Let OGC be open and free, just as it says in the OGL.

Cheers!

Maggan


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 18, 2004)

Wasgo said:
			
		

> People are treating this book differently because it's Wizards of the Coast. One could easily take the books made by the Game Mechanics, By Green Ronin, by Guardians of Order, by FFG, and everyone else and post almost the whole book on the web. With other companies, there is an acceptance this would be hurting them, but just because it's WotC, no one cares.




I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.

It is simply because this material comes from WOTC that it has enough inherent value for people to take the trouble to transcribe it.

In other words, it is the first instance of Open Gaming Content that has enough widespread acceptance and interest for a project of this kind to receive any kind of acceptance.

There have been other attempts at collating Open Gaming Content, most notably from the Free Gaming Association, that never went anywhere, and it wasn't because folks were worried that publishers would be upset, it was simply due to a lack of interest.

It is not because people somehow feel like WOTC "deserve" to be "ripped off" but other OGC publishers don't.

Deserves got nothin' to do with it.

Wulf


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 18, 2004)

See Maggan, there you go. Damn near simultaneous.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 18, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> Can't a game designer have an opinion that goes against the general concensus without having his head bitten off?



His opinion going against the "concensus"?  Yes, you are right.  However, in this case, his opinion is against the general purpose of the OGL, which _does_ kind of put him in a bad light: He benefits from the OGL by producing his own material via Malhavoc but then complains about the _unavoidable_ ramifacations of that license.



			
				Wasgo said:
			
		

> Andy isn't saying don't use the OGC, nor is he saying using OGC is bad. He's saying don't take the *WHOLE* book, which is the hard work of many authors, and potential profit for WotC and post it on the web. Plus he's right...people are treating this book differently because it's Wizards of the Coast. One could easily take the books made by the Game Mechanics, By Green Ronin, by Guardians of Order, by FFG, and everyone else and post almost the whole book on the web. With other companies, there is an acceptance this would be hurting them, but just because it's WotC, no one cares. The book was made OGC to allow other Publishers and Fans to use the mechanics in their own works. The worst part is, if we actually managed to hurt their sales, we'd probably never see any OGC from them again.



Funny you should mention FFG...

From the Introduction of Midnight, Page 3, second paragraph after The Open Game License:


> In fact, all rules-related material is designated as Open Game Content.  You can use this material in your own works, as long as you follow the conditions of the Open Game License.  You can copy the material to your website or even put it in a book that you publish and sell...



Actually, there's a paragraph like that in every FFG product I own (_Spells & Spellcraft_, _Giantcraft_, _School of Illusion_, etc.).  And what do you know..?  They're actually doing it.

It is kinda nice to see at least _one_ OGL-using entity has a _full_ understanding of exactly what Open Gaming is and exactly what is being given away.  The only thing the OGL protects is a company's "image" (logos, trademarks, product and product line names, layout, etc.) and fictional elements (game world information, history, myths, character names, flavor text, etc.).  Thus, it is important for _any_ OGL publisher to understand is that once you designate something as OGC, you are surrendering control of that material _forever_, with only a Section 15 entry as your only benefit.

And, yes, that is also true for WotC.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 18, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Including UA into the SRD would bring M&M and _Swords of Our Fathers_ (and the Modern SRD!) into the Section 15 of _every_ derivitive work thereafter, regardless of whether _any_ of these options are used within the product.




So? If the promise of open-content development is fulfilled, there could easily be products down the line with eth D20SRD listed in the Sec.15, but nothing of its actual content left. True, it's not that likely in the short term, but in the long term a game could evolve from it that has changed everything--after all, Ars Magica started out as AD&D houserules (IIRC).


----------



## woodelf (Apr 18, 2004)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> I have OCR'd AU for personal use from my copy and have it on my hard drive. Its almost 11 megs. Unfortunately, it is completely unedited and would probably be illegal for me to transmit to you (especially since you don't own a copy of the book). I might be wrong here, but I'm not completely sure. I don't know the OGL that well.




You know, that's a good point. Though, IIRC, the PI declaration is both clear and succinct, and, from my perusal, the PI could be excised with very minimal effort--it's mostly clearly-distinct elements, like the yuan-ti bloodline. So, if you want to take the effort to excise the PI, and then send the OGC on to me, the offer to do a nice layout on it still stands.


----------



## nikolai (Apr 18, 2004)

I don't think Andy is "evil". I'm sure he is kind to puppies and small children, and would be a wonderful person to get to know socially. He is welcome to his point of view, and is entitled to hold an opinion that goes against the consensus without having his head bitten off.

The problem is that his tragically misguided comments influenced the opinions of others, which killed what was a perfectly legitimate and very useful project. If people had just though: "Hey Andy, you're a really cool game designer, but your views on OGC are off the wall: let's ignore them", everything would have been fine. But because of his status people paid attention, which in turn led others to try to correct his errors, which in turn derailed both the UA SRD project and the thread. The thread evolved from "Is there a UA SRD?", to "Let's make a UA SRD", to "Let's not make a UA SRD", to "The reasons for not making a UA SRD aren't very good" and is slowly moving towards "It must not be nice for Andy, getting all this criticism".

I'm sure Andy's big enough to handle the criticism. If you're high profile and post that making a UA SRD is a bad thing (and those doing it should stop) to a thread devoted to making a UA SRD, it will cause controversy and people will criticise your opinions. I'm sure Andy's a great person and none of this is meant personally, but he is mistaken on this.

Is anyone out there still interested in making a UA SRD?

*Wasgo*; I'm not sure that anything you said contradicted what you quoted me as saying. Andy thinks a UA SRD is bad, and I was talking about a UA SRD. Andy's views on the validity on making a portion of UA's open content available online were not mentioned by him.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 18, 2004)

Andy_Collins said:
			
		

> Speaking as one of the authors of Unearthed Arcana, it seems to me a little petty to simply scan/retype the entire product and make it available for free to anyone who wants it. That, I would say, is hardly in the spirit of the d20 license or the Open Gaming movement.
> 
> We made UA open content to encourage publishers to try out some new rules in their products, as well as to recognize some exciting concepts pioneered by other companies, not so that people could abuse that generosity by getting 95% of the book for free.
> 
> Would you scan and distribute a Malhavoc product, or a Green Ronin product, or a Bastion product? They're all just as open as UA, but I'd hazard a guess that the authors and publishers wouldn't appreciate that either.




Would i? Maybe. If i didn't it wouldn't be because of codling the publisher, however; it'd be because i didn't think it was worth the effort. You seem to be taking releasing OGC in a reusable format as a personal insult. I see it as just the inverse: a compliment. Nobody's gonna take the effort to do this (whether retyping or OCRing) unless they think the rules are good.

For example, i'm working on (on and off--it's not the top priority right now) a complete free D20SRD-based fantasy game that will significantly change most of the elements of D&D3E. At this point, it looks like the skill/combat mechanics will be based on Spycraft, and it will incorporate significant elements of Dynasties & Demagogues, Book of Distinctions and Drawbacks, and Net Book of Feats. Why? Not because i want to "screw over" the producers of those (ok, NBoF doesn't count, since it's free to begin with), but because those are the "cool bits"--the best things i've found out there for their respective elements of D20 System rules. 

Now, as for the spirit of open-content development. First, as someone else mentioned, it's Ryan Dancey himself who suggested a couple months ago making an expanded SRD available online, incorporating as much worthwhile OGC as possible. Second, i don't think you can put the D20STL and "open gaming movement" in the same category, WRT their spirits/attitudes. Open-content game development is, or should be, about using open-content development models to make the best RPGs possible. That means maximal reusable content, and minimal barriers to reuse. The D20STL is about boosting D&D3E sales by licensing out trademarks. This necessitates barriers to reuse, or, more precisely, barriers to the nature of content so as to minimize competition between WotC products and others' products. 

IMHO, the WotC OGL itself fails to conform to "the spirit of open-content development", by the inclusion of trademark-use restrictions and, much more importantly, by failing to require making reuse practical. IMHO, *requiring* the release of OGC as actual, functionally-reusable content is a necessary element of open-content development. Just as, in the software world, one of the defining characteristics is releasing the source code, in the RPG world i believe that you should release your OGC in a reusable digital format (ASCII, HTML, RTF--something like that). If there is anything that is against the spirit of open-content game development, it is complaining when people reuse your content, even if that reuse is to make it available for free.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 18, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> So?



You seem to have mistaken me. What I was suggesting, more or less, was that incorporating UA _into_ the SRD would have this effect, which just "feels" wrong, if you take my meaning. Alternately, they could (being the SRD) not include these line items and simply add any as-yet unincluded authors to the SRD authorship.

What you describe is an unavoidable inevitability in regards to OGC re-use. For instance, I use two Base Classes, a few Feats, and Skill Expansions from AEG's _Mercenaries_. It is unfortunate, but unavoidable and thus accepted, that the Section 15 for Mercenaries includes over a half-dozen books that I know for a fact I'm not re-using material from.

Thus, my statement was one of line-items appearing within the SRD's Section 15 (within the Legal.pdf file) right from the start rather than line-items appearing from using material from UA itself or a UA-SRD file.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 18, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Is anyone out there still interested in making a UA SRD?



Well, I'm just about finished with Sanity.  However, I'm still waiting to see if the Breakdaddy/Woodelf collaboration works out, as that would likely be the fastest route of completion.  I'm also not sure how many others have been swayed by AC's post, so how much of the former offered contributions remain offered is anyone's guess at the moment.

Can we get re-confirmation from anyone still "in" the project?


----------



## woodelf (Apr 18, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> Does someone actually DO that? If so, they really aren't releasing ANY OGC, because you don't need to use a licence to copy rules if you aren't copying text. The copyright courts are pretty explicit on that one.



Can't come up with a specific citation right now, but i'd swear that i've actually seen a declaration that made "the rules" OGC, but "the text" either closed or PI--i forget which.



> Hmmm. It bothers me. I mean understand some authors do it out of a concern over control of their property. That's their decision, but I don't have to like it. It is, if anything, against the "spirit of the OGL" if anything is. The point of the OGL is to create a body of work that can be shared and propagate; creating "IP mines" that make it difficult to do this run counter to that effort.




And it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. One of the basic precepts of open-content development, IMHO, is credit for authorship. Since the WotC OGL makes crediting sources accurately difficult, the easiest way to trace an item back to its original author is by its label. But if you make the label non-reusable, when the item _is_ reused, nobody'll know where it came from. The author/publisher hasn't prevented reuse by PIing the name of the widget, all they've done is guarantee that nobody'll know it's _their_ widget being reused--it may even be mistakenly thought of as originating with the first reuser to assign it an OGC label.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 18, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Well, I don't think it's against the "spirit" of the OGL; if it has a spirit, it's "share the rules".  What some people are doing is retaining copyright control over their expression.  While they understand that their _rules_ can appear in 50 different products, what they don't want is their _expression_ of that work appearing in 50 different products.  To a degree, I can respect that.




Hmmm. I'd say the spirit of the WotC OGL is "share the text"--the rules were already reusable, only the expression was protected/owned. The WotC OGL makes it crystal clear exactly how much you have to change the expression (i.e., not at all) to not step on the original creator's toes.



> And, in all honesty, if it _is_ being done to prevent their rules from being re-used, they are really only prolonging the inevitable, assuming the material is good (and if it isn't good, it's protected better than any editing trick coupled with legal mumbo-jumbo can ever hope to accomplish).




Not necessarily. They may be preventing it being reused. Which is bad for them, however, not good. And not necessarily bad for the potential reuser.  Let's say that you want ship-to-ship fighting rules for your pirate game. There are two books out there with them. Book A has good rules (9/10), but would require rewording significant chunks because only "the rules" are OGC, not the particular expression. Book B also has good rules, but not quite as good (8/10), but all of them are OGC. If those in Book B are good enough for your purposes, you may just forgo those in Book A. Or,  take the best ideas from Book A and apply them to make Book B's OGC just as good or better, thus not only not reusing or crediting Book A, but obviating the need for anyone else to do so in the future. Since ideas aren't protected to begin with, you can't prevent this, and if you've made it hard for the particular expression to be reused people will probably just not bother trying. Similarly, if i'm gonna have to rework the expression radically to reuse the rules, i may just forgo doing so at all, and invent my own.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 18, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I really hope those trying to make a AU SRD will not be discouraged by the misguided complaints that have reared their heads. I think they're doing a really valuable service to the community. The big tragedy of OGC is that there are no large well designed, edited and organised online rules (except the main SRD). There's material that is explicitly released with permission to distribute it; but is it not being made widely available.




That's why i (and some others) think the WotC OGL should've had a clause requiring OGC to be functionally reusable--such as released as editable text. A time delay is perfectly reasonable, and wouldn't undercut the point of such a clause.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 18, 2004)

I never felt is was in the spirit of the OGL to allow people to blatently rip off the content of books and put them out there for free on-line for people to use.  Nor was the spirit to provide a new game system.

I believe the true spirit of the OGL was to allow the following:


To allow other publishers to create adventures and source-books for Dungeons and Dragons without having to go through a complex license process
To maximize the marketshare of the D&D game

That's it.  This was never an attempt to justify the GPL style of licensing that seems to be popular with younger people with a technical bent.

To this end, the SRD was released to give users a specific reference to what pieces of the WoTC IP could be legally referenced.  It is not a replacement for the books, which is why monster descriptions were not placed there, just combat blocks.

It seems a select few are trying to push the bounds of the license to the limits.  I think the reason other publishers have been stingy with OGLing areas is for fear of complication hording--take all the goodies and provide them for free which reduces incentive to purchase product.

I take a dim view when publishers work hard and people break the spirit of the publishers release of it by abusing the privilage.  I mean, what we have now is a lot better than the late 90's when TSR went after all the Internet sites.

Depending on what happens with UA on-line, I fear what will happen now is Wizards will no longer release OGL product for any new 3.5 products, and I'll bet D&D 4.0 will not be released under the SRD and OGL.  While people suggest that they'd never do that for fear of pissing off publishers, maybe they will instead do what Gary Gygax mentioned a while back they should have done--license the game to other publishers so they could (a) provide quality assurance to the product and (b) so the market wouldn't be flooded with bad product and (c) to make sure IP was protected.   This would allow some of the high-quality players to continue to publish while prevent the abuse.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 18, 2004)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> I just want to thank everyone here for making it highly unlikely for WotC to release any more material under the OGL, and possibly even consider keeping D&D 4.0 closed as well.




If this stops them from releasing future materials as OGC, then it would just lend credence to what some have suspected from the start: they want to eat their cake and have it too. If they truly believe in open-content development, and want to promote it, then they can't very well complain when it occurs.  Doing so amounts to cashing in on the cachet of "open source" without actually supporting the ideals. [Which, given the details of the WotC OGL, i actually believe they _are_ doing.]


----------



## woodelf (Apr 18, 2004)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Money. Money is made off the books when peeps buy it. If they simply posted it on the web in the SRD they wouldn't make any coin because it would be available for free. Probably one reason you don't see it the content in the SRD...it would cut into sales. Why buy the book if you can get the main parts of it for free? And yes, I know the major parts of the DMG, MM, and PH are in (or are) the SRD...but those are core rules...everyone wants to own a nice shiny core rulebook.




I don't buy the distinction. I suspect (yes, this is purely anecdotal), that those (like me) who prefer books, prefer books. Period. Doesn't matter if it's a core book that i'll use every session, or a supplement that i'm gonna pull 3 monsters out of. Those who will accept screen-reading, or a plaintext home-printout, for a supplement, will probably accept it for the core rules, too. (i've heard of at least one entire group that *prefers* using the D20SRD onscreen during play to using the core books, and some of them actually sold off their D&D3E books.)


----------



## woodelf (Apr 18, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> Andy, WotC modeled the OGL after the GPL, most GPL products are available for 'free'. So, please don't start about the spirit of things, WotC saw a business opertunity in Open Source, these are the consequences...
> 
> Now, i try my best to ensure that the product gets a good six months run before the OGC is released from the product, this should cover around 85% of the initial sales. We could have legally released the OGC parts within a day of it's release, we didn't, we don't really want to alienate a publisher (the hand that feeds us OGC).




Is that figure based on concrete information, or just a guesstimate? I'm asking because the small-press people i've heard actual (ballpark) numbers from indicate that probably upwards of 95% of sales are in the first 90 days. Which was why 6mo has been proposed as the lag-time for releasing free OGC in a couple of places--the print book is essentially "done" by then, with a solid 3mo of padding, to boot.



> It's not about screwing publishers, it's about the 'spirit' of Open Source. First you make sure what's Open is available for easy access (text files online), second it's about building a better product from that Open Content, third it's about filling the holes that the available Open Content doesn't cover and see what you can do better.




Couldn't agree more. It is not only Not-Bad to make OGC easily reusable, it is Good. IMHO, the point of it is the game, not the publisher.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 18, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Is that figure based on concrete information, or just a guesstimate? I'm asking because the small-press people i've heard actual (ballpark) numbers from indicate that probably upwards of 95% of sales are in the first 90 days. Which was why 6mo has been proposed as the lag-time for releasing free OGC in a couple of places--the print book is essentially "done" by then, with a solid 3mo of padding, to boot.



Well, if it's small press, then i would agree with the +/- 95% of the sales in the first 90 days, but this a WotC product, these generally have a somewhat longer shelf life.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 18, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> Well, if it's small press, then i would agree with the +/- 95% of the sales in the first 90 days, but this a WotC product, these generally have a somewhat longer shelf life.




doh! yeah, i meant to finish off my question with asking if you actually knew that WotC books had a longer shelf-life, or were just guessing they did (i suspect they do), or were just guessing on the whole time-frame, without any actual data points.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 18, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> You seem to have mistaken me. What I was suggesting, more or less, was that incorporating UA _into_ the SRD would have this effect, which just "feels" wrong, if you take my meaning.
> [snip]
> Thus, my statement was one of line-items appearing within the SRD's Section 15 (within the Legal.pdf file) right from the start rather than line-items appearing from using material from UA itself or a UA-SRD file.




No, i got your meaning. And my response is "so what?" So what if the D20SRD's Sec.15 entry includes references to material that you aren't reusing? Is this really any worse than the current situation (with the poor credit-tracking that, as you observe, forces you to regularly include credit for materials you aren't using)?


----------



## Wasgo (Apr 18, 2004)

There is a key distinction between OGC and OGL that isn't addressed. Software under the OGL isn't sold. The OGC in published books is. OGC has as its main use, the ability to reuse materials from other publishers in your own works and this is what we currently see it used for. Unlike OGL software, making it freely available will hurt them.

In terms of posting full works, Andy Collins has already spoken against it. Chris Pramas does so here: http://www.greenronin.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5644

When discussing the PDF works of some companies like The Game Mechanics, the entire book is pdf and could be converted into OGC redistributable in under an hour. So I guess my question is, when OGC is included liberally, what should really be considered fair? For me that's respecting the publisher and author's wishes, but how do other people feel about it?


----------



## Darkness (Apr 18, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> *Darkness*; I agree with what you say. ... But - as far as I can see - none of that was Andy's point. Andy's point was it is a bad thing for people to make a UA SRD, he's wrong, but even so has still managed to sabotage the project, and make a bunch of people who were trying to do a really neat thing for others feel unreasonably bad about themselves.



 Yeah, well. I'm just trying to figure out why Andy is saying what he is saying and whether people communicating better with WotC could have helped avoid upsetting him.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 18, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I never felt is was in the spirit of the OGL to allow people to blatently rip off the content of books and put them out there for free on-line for people to use.  Nor was the spirit to provide a new game system.



Are we back to this again? Please:


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> There is no "spirit" to the OGL. It is a legal document. If you decide to release material using it, you agree to abide by all the conditions within it. If you're not prepared to have someone create and distribute (say) a pdf containing your OGC, then don't release your material as OGC.



I don't understand why people keep pretending the OGL doesn't say what it does. It is a very clear document. It's easy to understand. The consequences of using it are well-understood.

If Publisher A wants other people to refrain from distributing Publisher A's material, Publisher A ought to choose a method of distribution that doesn't explicitly allow them to do so. I have no problem with publishers who distribute non-OGC material. That's perfectly acceptable to me. They worked hard on it and they have every right to protect their investment.

But if you release a product using a particular license, surely you can't complain if other people abide by the terms of that license? I don't understand why this is even a topic of discussion. Read the OGL. If you have any questions, you haven't understood the document.

I have NO desire to cost anyone money or to profit on other people's hard work. I don't want anyone in this industry to NOT earn money. I do not want to take what isn't rightfully mine. But the OGL is a very clear document that does not require interpretation, or the idea of a "spirit" to be understood. That's the nature of legally binding documents -- they allow us to avoid the hassle of interpretation where everybody has a different understanding.

If we think that the OGL requires an understanding of its spirit in order to be used, it is a failure.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 18, 2004)

*Fair or unfair*



			
				Wasgo said:
			
		

> So I guess my question is, when OGC is included liberally, what should really be considered fair? For me that's respecting the publisher and author's wishes, but how do other people feel about it?




I don't know what I think is "fair". I honestly don't know.

Of course it is fair to respect the authors and publishers and their opinion.

But there is also the fact that declaring something OGC is a potential selling point for a book. So let's say a customer picks up Skull&Bones and reads that 90% is OGC, he thinks "wow, that's so cool, I've read the OGL and that means I can get even more use out of these rules. I'll buy the book and use the OGC to create something cool in return."

So liberally declaring OGC is a potential selling point. It is something that is offered to me as a customer. "Buy this book, get all these cool toys, and 90% is OGC!"

Is it then "fair" to turn around and say to a customer that "yes, 90% is OGC but I strongly feel that you should not use it according to the OGL. I would like you to use it according to my wishes, which you may or may not have been privy to. Thanks for asking."

Companies enhance the value of their books by declaring OGC. This potentially draws more customers. So the companies benefit from declaring OGC. When are we as customers to benefit from this?

Not at all? Is that fair? If OGC is only meant to be used by other publishers, then I think the "movement" is heading in the wrong direction, and I think another license would be in order to cover this use. So that we as customers get clear info on what OGC means.

But then there's the case of whether or not liberal declaration of OGC enhances sales. I would like to think that to be true, but I don't. So GRR wanting to hold onto their packaging of their OGC as the only source is understandable. At least if sales would be hurt by people republishing the OGC of a whole book.

I don't know. GRR probably knows more about this than I do. They sure make great books. 

But it seems that even WotC don't really know what's going to happen to sales if a total republishing of OGC content is done for free, at least if I remember some of Andy Collins' comments before the release correctly.

UA is a trial. And I think it is fair of WotC or individuals attached to WotC to let that trial run its course without trying to influence the outcome. How else will we know?

And what is fair? And to whom? WotC? The customers? Other publishers? The OGL movement?

I don't know. I honestly don't know. I would like to see a huge repositry of OGC collected in one place. All OGC ever published. Would this break the companies producing OGC? I hope not, because if it does, someting is very wrong with the building blocks that this OGL-thing is resting on.

Cheers

Maggan


----------



## RavenProject (Apr 19, 2004)

@barsoomcore
Very good posting. Couldn't agree more.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 19, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I don't understand why people keep pretending the OGL doesn't say what it does. It is a very clear document. It's easy to understand. The consequences of using it are well-understood.
> ...
> If we think that the OGL requires an understanding of its spirit in order to be used, it is a failure.




Well, despite what's legal, people have a moral responsibility not to exploit loopholes and be sleazy, but that's neither here nor there.

I do think the OGL is going to be a failure for Wizards.  That's what's happening.  I doubt they will use such an open license anymore, because what's happening is the great experiment is starting to fail.  For every publisher like Necromancer which focuses on doing good works and creating adventures and new stuff, we have people who want to just strip everything from published products and make it available for nothing as a "free game", and when publishers complain they just balk and talk about the letter of the contract.

How people behave will probably determine the future of this license.  Right now, I don't think it's looking good to survive.  I remember Ryan saying the company is divided internally.    I actually hope that they come up with a more realistic license and limit it to a dozen or so publishers so (a) the market doesn't get flooded and (b) the people using the license have solid business ethics.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 19, 2004)

Wasgo said:
			
		

> So I guess my question is, when OGC is included liberally, what should really be considered fair? For me that's respecting the publisher and author's wishes, but how do other people feel about it?



See, to me, the publisher's and author's wishes are inconsequential.  Indeed, these wishes seem to ignore (and even conflict with) the agreement they make when they release Open Gaming material...

OGL 1.0a, (1c): "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute;

For this dicussion, "publicly display" is the primary topic.

OGL 1.0a, (1a): "Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content;

and

OGL 1.0a, (4): Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the extact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

So WotC, as the "Contributer" per section 1a, have agreed to allow me (the "You" in section 4) to do anything I wish so long as I abide by the terms of the License, which allows, per section 1c, public displays of OGC material.  Sure, writers and publishers can wish for their material not to be reproduced; They may even ask that it not be done.  However, by using the OGL, they have _already_ given their consent, per section 3 (Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this license.).


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 19, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> See, to me, the publisher's and author's wishes are inconsequential.




And that attitude, to me, is what seperates ethical publishers from unethical ones.

An established publisher will be greatful for the license, will likely abide requests made by the publisher, and will work to keep goodwill with the licensor and the community at large.

The less-than-ethical person will do what he can to exploit it, use the letter of the law to exuse, and try to get away with whatever he or she can do.

I think of it akin to an "all you can eat" plan.  You can technically eat all the food at the buffet, but you tend to know when you've done too much.

If we use GR as a example, the OGL is facilitated so you can put those rules in an adventure setting of your own.  

Ethical Publisher:  I take Skull and Bones and create a supermodule that references those rules, and thus encourages those to purchase a GR product.  It's a multiplier effect.  We both benefit.

Unethical Publisher:  I decide to strip-mine all the rules about watercraft in an Ultimate Water Comprendium.  I take all the OGL and then publish it--I steal market share from the GR stuff.  I win at the expense of all.  If I am a free internet compiler (or anarchist), I end up providing this commodity for free, reducing the perceived value of all the hard work and thus hurting the whole industry.

Again, it's a question of ethics and morality, not law.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 19, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> And that attitude, to me, is what seperates ethical publishers from unethical ones.



Glad to see you are capable of making such brilliant character assessments based on a single subject in a single thread.  Here's one to consider: We have two publishers.  One states in their books that posting their material on a website is fine.  The other states that they would prefer it that such didn't happen.  Which one of these is the "ethical" publisher: The one that fully acknowledges the implications of the aggreement they made (which I illustrate above) by using the OGL or the one that would try to label those implications as "petty".

To me, the publisher that has an "eyes wide open" approach is the more ethical; They realize what Open Gaming is and embrace it and all of its ramifications, and they don't try to call other people "petty" or "sleazy" for doing what is explicitly allowed by the OGL and thus agreed to allow.



> An established publisher will be greatful for the license, will likely abide requests made by the publisher, and will work to keep goodwill with the licensor and the community at large.



There would be no reason to "keep goodwill" if the licensor understood and accepted _exactly_ what making their material OGC means.  Bad will only seems to foster when someone suddenly realizes that they have no control over their material and seek to discredit those people that would try to use it.



> The less-than-ethical person will do what he can to exploit it, use the letter of the law to exuse, and try to get away with whatever he or she can do.



This is the "cup's half empty" view; From the other side, one would say, "they knew or should have known exactly what they were agreeing to when they used the OGL."

A publisher not liking the results of the OGL does not make OGC re-users unethical for re-using the OGC in question.



> I think of it akin to an "all you can eat" plan. You can technically eat all the food at the buffet, but you tend to know when you've done too much.
> 
> If we use GR as a example, the OGL is facilitated so you can put those rules in an adventure setting of your own.
> 
> ...



Actually, unless S&B has some kind of Co-Adaptability License or permission from GR to reference S&B was obtained by an independant agreement, the so-called "Ethical" publisher is in violation of Section 7 of the OGL.

That's funny.



> Again, it's a question of ethics and morality, not law.



No, it's a question of Law.  Trust me on this.  Ethics and morality have been discussed on the OGF mailing lists many times and thus far have proven to be meaningless compared to the wording of the license.


----------



## DaveStebbins (Apr 19, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Well, despite what's legal, people have a moral responsibility not to exploit loopholes and be sleazy, but that's neither here nor there.



I agree. 

I also think we should discuss things without passing judgements and using language like "sleazy" and "unethical" to categorize those who disagree with us. Such attacks just cast a negative reflection upon the person posting them.

That is, however, as you say, neither here nor there. :\


----------



## Breakdaddy (Apr 19, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I do think the OGL is going to be a failure for Wizards.  That's what's happening.  I doubt they will use such an open license anymore, because what's happening is the great experiment is starting to fail.  For every publisher like Necromancer which focuses on doing good works and creating adventures and new stuff, we have people who want to just strip everything from published products and make it available for nothing as a "free game", and when publishers complain they just balk and talk about the letter of the contract.




If by "failing" you mean generating more revenue for WOTC in the form of greater core rulebook sales I would say you are right. I submit to you that this OGL movement will go away about as quickly as the software open source movement and Linux (which is to say, it ain't goin' anywhere!).


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 19, 2004)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> If by "failing" you mean generating more revenue for WOTC in the form of greater core rulebook sales I would say you are right. I submit to you that this OGL movement will go away about as quickly as the software open source movement and Linux (which is to say, it ain't goin' anywhere!).




Actually, this is what I predict,

D&D4 will be closed.  The OGL will lose it's power as the core game becomes obsolete.  Only the most die-hard advocates who also publish OGL will keep the game alive.

I actually see how this pans out as a prediction of open source.  It doesn't take into account economic models and how people get paid.  If the game industry dries up because people post everything on the net and it becomes as small as the wargaming culture, it will show what could happen to the software industry if a company like Microsoft released Windows under the GPL.


----------



## jeffh (Apr 19, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> And that attitude, to me, is what seperates ethical publishers from unethical ones.
> 
> An established publisher will be greatful for the license, will likely abide requests made by the publisher, and will work to keep goodwill with the licensor and the community at large.
> 
> ...




I'm all for upholding ethics and morality over law.  I utterly fail, however, to see anything unethical about the behaviour you describe, and as far as I can see you haven't even tried to *explain* your objection to it; you seem to assume it's self-evident what the problem is, but that's not the case, your use of loaded words in describing it notwithstanding.

If you strip out all the phrases like "unethical", "steal" and "strip-mine" from your description of the second publisher, what's left simply describes what the OGL, which the original publisher agreed to of their own free will, clearly and explicitly gives them permission to do.  They're not exploiting an obscure loophole, they're doing something that the OGL was deliberately designed to allow, that the people who created the OGL (by which I mean first and foremost Ryan Dancey) have been clear about allowing from the very beginning, and that according to comments in this thread, is very much in keeping with Dancey's own intentions and vision for the OGL.  Moreover, Woodelf's comments about the shelf life of gaming products are very relevant here - the argument that the proposed SRD would take money out of WotC's pockets is questionable at best (though I personally would want such an SRD to appear, at the soonest, in mid-July, just to make sure - that gives the sort of six-month window that has been talked about elsewhere here).

There is even a case to be made for the view that the only unethical one in your examples is the original publisher, who agrees to the OGL but then seeks to, in effect, back out of this agreement by trying to stop people from doing what their voluntary agreement to the license quite clearly allows them to do.   When politicians do this we call it "talking out of both sides of their mouth" or worse.  In more concrete terms, if WotC or Green Ronin don't want people to use their OGC, why are they releasing it under the OGL in the first place?

Edit - replaced my original last paragraph with a much better one.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 19, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> To me, the publisher that has an "eyes wide open" approach is the more ethical; They realize what Open Gaming is and embrace it and all of its ramifications, and they don't try to call other people "petty" or "sleazy" for doing what is explicitly allowed by the OGL and thus agreed to allow.




Yes, but what I think will be the consequences of this will be that publishers will start being more limited in what parts of their products become released under the OGL.  I guess it's wrong to trust humanity to not be greedy and exploitive.



			
				Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> This is the "cup's half empty" view; From the other side, one would say, "they knew or should have known exactly what they were agreeing to when they used the OGL."




Yes, and try another example.

A family comes on hard times and misses a rent payment due to a bank mixup.  Landlord 1 works out a deal with them, understands that it was just a one-time thing.  Landlord 2 starts eviction immediately.  By rights, Landlord 2 is following the letter of the law, but is it right?  You ignore all of these variables in your arguments.





			
				Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Actually, unless S&B has some kind of Co-Adaptability License or permission from GR to reference S&B was obtained by an independant agreement, the so-called "Ethical" publisher is in violation of Section 7 of the OGL.
> 
> That's funny.




Maybe you didn't understand that the first example was done agreeing to the OGL.  I don't follow your criticism of it.



			
				Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> No, it's a question of Law.  Trust me on this.  Ethics and morality have been discussed on the OGF mailing lists many times and thus far have proven to be meaningless compared to the wording of the license.




Basically, you are saying that it doesn't matter if the gaming industry goes bankrupt because Wizards was stupid for releasing such a license agreement.  Well congratulations then.  This short term thinking will be the death of the hobby.


----------



## Voadam (Apr 19, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Actually, this is what I predict,
> 
> D&D4 will be closed.  The OGL will lose it's power as the core game becomes obsolete.  Only the most die-hard advocates who also publish OGL will keep the game alive.
> 
> I actually see how this pans out as a prediction of open source.  It doesn't take into account economic models and how people get paid.  If the game industry dries up because people post everything on the net and it becomes as small as the wargaming culture, it will show what could happen to the software industry if a company like Microsoft released Windows under the GPL.




My understanding of WotC business strategy for D&D is that everything is designed to sell Player's Handbooks.

The WotC supplements are support for people who buy PHs and all the third party supplements are support for people who buy PHs and all the online SRD material (including all the PH rules) are there to support people who buy PHs.

My understanding is that this has been a successful business strategy, including the release of the online srd free.

I would not predict that a 4th edition would be closed. I would predict WotC would open it to gain the same benefits it does from its 3rd edition strategy.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 19, 2004)

Again, I don't predict that there will be no licensing of the game, but it might not be OGL.  It might just be a limited license for a few publishers, ending the glut and the on-line products.

The point I am getting at is attitudes like "Caveat Emptor" about the license will hasten the death of support of OGL games.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 19, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Yes, but what I think will be the consequences of this will be that publishers will start being more limited in what parts of their products become released under the OGL. I guess it's wrong to trust humanity to not be greedy and exploitive.



Or, they could work on providing more books that aren't 95% crunch.  In other words, they could improve the quality of the non-OGC material thus providing a means for their product to retain viability after their material has been distributed through another source.



> Yes, and try another example.
> 
> A family comes on hard times and misses a rent payment due to a bank mixup. Landlord 1 works out a deal with them, understands that it was just a one-time thing. Landlord 2 starts eviction immediately. By rights, Landlord 2 is following the letter of the law, but is it right? You ignore all of these variables in your arguments.



This is an apples-to-oranges comparison.  Why?  Because the OGL stipulates that the license is irrevocable (Section 4) unless certain conditions arise (12 and 13).  What most of your argument sums up as is an attempt to use "morality" to bypass the conditions of Section 2; as there is no legal way to add conditions to re-use, there is instead going to be a "social stigma" attached to anyone that distributes the material in a way the original Contributor doesn't agree to.

And _that_ is unethical.



> Maybe you didn't understand that the first example was done agreeing to the OGL. I don't follow your criticism of it.



Incorrect.  Your "super module" will fit one of the following four conditions:

1. Redistribute the OGC material making S&B irrelevant to the product.
2. Distribute derived material without mention of S&B.
3. Distribute derived material referencing S&B in violation of Section 7 of the OGL.
4. Distribute derived material referencing S&B with special permission from Green Ronin to do so.

#1 is what you are indicating you _don't_ want to do, so it's out.  Baring #1, #2 is all you have left within the bounds of the OGL, but this leaves your customers with a bunch of numbers/terms that have no meaning to them unless they happen to own the unidentified book.  #3 is like #2, but to give the reader a point of reference, you indicate co-adaptability with S&B, which Section 7 of the OGL forbids.  #4 is like #3 but you have obtained a seperate agreement with Green Ronin to mention S&B as Section 7 of the OGL _does_ allow, but that agreement is outside of the OGL itself.

So when I buy your "super module", which of these conditions will I find?



> Basically, you are saying that it doesn't matter if the gaming industry goes bankrupt because Wizards was stupid for releasing such a license agreement. Well congratulations then. This short term thinking will be the death of the hobby.



See, unlike you, I don't see "the death of the hobby".  If anything, the hobby has been liberated: The OGL allows _anyone_ to produce gaming material.  We no longer need WotC or even D&D.  I'm not worried if there will be a 4E.  Hell, I'm not worried about WotC going bankrupt.  The OGL has _freed_ the d20 system from the decisions and fate of one company.

And, to examplify my stance, I submit the following list:

_Complete Warrior_
_Book of Exalted Deeds_
_Deities & Demigods_
_Draconomicon_

These are four books that I _have not_ purchased because of a _lack_ of OGC within them (and if I looked more at a few of their other titles or their upcoming titles, I'd likely find more).  If they were opened up, even if the rules were ported directly into the SRD, I would be at Amazon in a heart-beat ordering them.  Why?  Because I support Open Gaming and I support the companies that contribute to it by buying the products that I feel make worthy contributions.  Heck, UA is the first WotC product I've bought since the BoVD, reason being that I was tired of trying to skirt-around the topic of rules I use but can't include on my website (such as Sanity and W&V) without contacting Andy Smith at WotC legal to reference the material (for the record, my current list of "permitted" references includes MotP, BoVD, OA, MaoF, FRCS, and the 3.0 splat-books).


----------



## Wasgo (Apr 19, 2004)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I don't know what I think is "fair". I honestly don't know.
> 
> Of course it is fair to respect the authors and publishers and their opinion.
> 
> ...




I think most publishers would love fans using the OGC to create new material. Most of them see that's what it's for (beyond the few publishers who try to render an abstruse as possible license.) There's a big difference between that and putting the whole thing stripped of PI on the web.

Personally, I don't even dislike the idea of an online respository. Having access to a large amount of OGC in one place would be really cool. But a single document listing all the free content from one product...I don't care if it is legal, it still bugs me.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 19, 2004)

JohnRTroy:

Have you any data for your assertion that Wizards intends to move away from an OGL-supported release strategy? Are sales of the Player's Handbook especially poor? Is the RPG portion of WotC losing money? Are other publishers failing to make money? Is the industry actually dying?

I'm sure the bubble of the early d20 days is collapsing, but I'm not at all sure that d20 publishers are unable to make ends meet. Seems to me that Green Ronin, Privateer Press, Mongoose, Sword & Sorcery are all doing pretty well. Now, I'm far from being very well-informed on this, but if you have data that suggests things are as dire as you say they are, I would want to see that before taking your word on it.

I wanted to address your specific example:


			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> A family comes on hard times and misses a rent payment due to a bank mixup.  Landlord 1 works out a deal with them, understands that it was just a one-time thing.  Landlord 2 starts eviction immediately.  By rights, Landlord 2 is following the letter of the law, but is it right?  You ignore all of these variables in your arguments.



The misleading portion of this example is that it posits the publisher as the hard-done-by family who were temporarily unable to meet their obligations. Obviously, it's NICE when people make allowances for others who are unlucky.

But WotC cannot be considered UNLUCKY to have released UA using the OGL. Nor can Green Ronin be considered to have suffered a temporary setback by releasing _Skull and Bones_ under the OGL. d20 publishers are CHOOSING to use a particular license. Presumably they are doing so with the expectation that the conditions of that license will be upheld.

A better example would be a tenant who signs a lease agreement, and then expresses surprise that they are expected to pay their rent each month. Calls the landlord "sleazy" for asking for that rent. Now, it would be NICE of the landlord not to insist on having the rent paid, sure. On occasion the landlord might even do that, if they understood the tenant was temporarily unlucky. But if the tenant had no intention of living up to the conditions of the lease, why did they sign it in the first place? Who's being sleazy now?

The OGL is specifically designed so that material released under it can be freely distributed by anyone who cares to. That's not exploiting a loophole, that's using the license for what it was designed for.

And as far as WotC potentially releasing no further materials under the OGL, that doesn't mean "the death of the hobby" -- at least, not as far as I'm concerned. The SRD has already been released and cannot be rescinded and suits my needs just fine.

So I don't see a downside to people obeying the law. I don't see it as unethical. And I certainly don't see it as sleazy.


----------



## Nellisir (Apr 19, 2004)

Wasgo said:
			
		

> Plus he's right...people are treating this book differently because it's Wizards of the Coast. One could easily take the books made by the Game Mechanics, By Green Ronin, by Guardians of Order, by FFG, and everyone else and post almost the whole book on the web. With other companies, there is an acceptance this would be hurting them, but just because it's WotC, no one cares.




No one has done a book like Unearthed Arcana.  Period.  I'm using alot of OGC in my campaign setting, and the most influential book by far is UA, simply because of its scope.  I'm still not sure why WotC so often manages to scoop the rest of the industry, or why, in this OGL era, they continue to set the bar for creativity and ingenuity(and I don't think it's just money, though it may be the larger pool of designers they can afford).

UA is the first book I've seen that really sets out a large number of optional rule-inserts without advocating a specific goal.  There's stuff in UA for rules-heavy and rules-light, roleplayers and rollplayers, PC, NPCs, and DMs.

The closest thing to it yet may be the Advanced books coming from Sword & Sorcery and Green Ronin.

As for D&D 4.0 -- I wouldn't dare predict what WotC will do.  Cease supporting the OGL (they CAN'T cancel it), and someone else will publish the SRD, plus character generation & stuff, inside of 6 months.  Probably multiple somebodies.  They also lose the free support products published by all the smaller publishers, putting the onus back on them to support their game line with adventures and the less profitable supplements they've so effectively farmed out now.  If they did abandon the OGL, I strongly suspect they'd create a similar but more restrictive license combining the OGL and the d20 marketted specifically towards larger publishers, probably for a monetary payment.  All I know for sure is, I wouldn't be buying it.

Wandering off topic,
Nell.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 19, 2004)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> No one has done a book like Unearthed Arcana.  Period.  I'm using alot of OGC in my campaign setting, and the most influential book by far is UA, simply because of its scope.  I'm still not sure why WotC so often manages to scoop the rest of the industry, or why, in this OGL era, they continue to set the bar for creativity and ingenuity(and I don't think it's just money, though it may be the larger pool of designers they can afford).




Well, part of it could be your perspective. From my perspective, i'm continually appalled by the fact that WotC *doesn't* set the bar for creativity, ingenuity, editing, or artwork in the D20 System market. IMHO, of course. They are, IMHO, firmly leading the middle of the pack. Only place they are consistently leading is where raw economies of scale help them: production values. And while no one has done a book like Unearthed Arcana, perhaps as little as 1/3rd of it is really innovative--the rest has appeared (more or less) in other D20 System products already, or is old hat to RPGs in general and only new to D20 System.



> As for D&D 4.0 -- I wouldn't dare predict what WotC will do.  Cease supporting the OGL (they CAN'T cancel it), and someone else will publish the SRD, plus character generation & stuff, inside of 6 months.  Probably multiple somebodies.  They also lose the free support products published by all the smaller publishers, putting the onus back on them to support their game line with adventures and the less profitable supplements they've so effectively farmed out now.  If they did abandon the OGL, I strongly suspect they'd create a similar but more restrictive license combining the OGL and the d20 marketted specifically towards larger publishers, probably for a monetary payment.  All I know for sure is, I wouldn't be buying it.




Thank you: you said it much more clearly and succinctly than i'm apparently capable of tonight. You are absolutely right: the number of D20 System publishers out there, and the value of an open-content system that tons of publishers are supporting, are getting bigger every day, and the more time goes by, the harder it becomes for WotC to not take advantage of those effects. By the time D&D4E comes out, i don't think they could afford to jettison the OGL-based market, and if they did, i think D20 System could very well trump D&D for marketshare.


----------



## jeffh (Apr 19, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Basically, you are saying that it doesn't matter if the gaming industry goes bankrupt because Wizards was stupid for releasing such a license agreement.  Well congratulations then.  This short term thinking will be the death of the hobby.




No, that's not "basically what he said", it is a strawman that's nothing like what he said.

I and, as far as I can see, those on the same side of the debate as myself, have thus far refrained from putting words in your mouth or casting aspersions on your motives.  (A couple of us have questioned some of your ethical stands, but even that has been kept within the realm of civil debate.)

Also, on a factual matter raised by the above-quoted paragraph:  First of all, the death of the hobby has been predicted a million times.  I'll believe it when I see it.  Moreover, considering sales are as high as they've ever been (barring the huge spike that was the year 2000, which I think we all recognize for the special case it was) and vastly better than in the period just before the advent of the OGL, I think it's little short of ridiculous to assert that the OGL, which by all visible evidence has breathed new life into the hobby, will somehow become a problem for it, much less kill it.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 19, 2004)

Wasgo said:
			
		

> There is a key distinction between OGC and OGL that isn't addressed. Software under the OGL isn't sold. The OGC in published books is. OGC has as its main use, the ability to reuse materials from other publishers in your own works and this is what we currently see it used for. Unlike OGL software, making it freely available will hurt them.




Well, assuming you meant "...between GNU and OGL...", somebody should really tell RedHat that they aren't selling software. Plenty of open-source software is also commercial. Now, admittedly, there are nsignificant differences in the media that make the case not an exact analogue. For starters, it is the source code, not necessarily the software, that is free, while for RPGs there really is no such distinction: an RPG book *is* the "source code". Secondly, while both have development costs, software has almost-zero production costs, while a book has pretty significant production costs. But these are all issues that should've been considered, or were considered, before the WotC OGL was finalized. And one of the "solutions" to the dilemma was pointing out that (1) people like books, and production values matter, and (2) in general, by the time someone gets around to stripping all the OGC out of something and formatting it into a decent document, the book will have already sold a significantn %age of its life--especially if you're trying to address point 1, and make something that has a quality presentation, in hardcopy.



> When discussing the PDF works of some companies like The Game Mechanics, the entire book is pdf and could be converted into OGC redistributable in under an hour. So I guess my question is, when OGC is included liberally, what should really be considered fair? For me that's respecting the publisher and author's wishes, but how do other people feel about it?




I agree that it's not as clear-cut as republishing the whole thing, for free, online being either ok or not ok. That is clearly legal, and i think it may even be ethical--it depends on the circumstances. To take an extreme, i see nothing wrong with doing this if the book has been out of print for a while and the company has said they aren't going to reprint it (and the content is OGC, of course). At the other extreme, there's a world of difference between the publisher saying "please don't just put all the OGC online for free until the book has mostly sold through" and "you are a bad person if you put the OGC online for free while the book is still new". And how much reworking does it take to make a difference? Does it matter whether the resulting work is free or commercial, PDF or hardcopy? Do you consider the Pocket Players' Handbook to be unethical? Does it matter that one of the things WotC said right from the start [paraphrasing their FAQ] was that "anybody could take the entire contents of the D20SRD and publish their own players' handbook, but we're confident that our products' production values will still be better, and they won't hurt our sales"?


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 19, 2004)

Breakdaddy...

Please drop me an email: jdomsalla@swfla.rr.com.  Even if a UASRD never gets done, you'd be saving me hours and hours of transcription (and I only need parts, not the whole thing).

Thanks.

*On topic...*



			
				Wasgo said:
			
		

> I think most publishers would love fans using the OGC to create new material. Most of them see that's what it's for (beyond the few publishers who try to render an abstruse as possible license.) There's a big difference between that and putting the whole thing stripped of PI on the web.
> 
> Personally, I don't even dislike the idea of an online respository. Having access to a large amount of OGC in one place would be really cool. But a single document listing all the free content from one product...I don't care if it is legal, it still bugs me.



Actually, I was thinking about this earlier.  This is the kind of project that can actually be taken further, expanding on it.

For instance, UA only includes 4 Environmental Races (Aquatic, Arctic, Desert, Jungle), but I can think of a lot more: Mountain, Swamp, Forest, Island, etc.  Why not create/add more?

Why not include newly created Incantations?

Wounds & Vitality and Armor DR...  We've seen dozens of different "takes" on this since the system was introduced in _Star Wars_.  Why not round up a few of these versions, ones that have proven themselves in gameplay during the past 2 years, and add those as additional options?

There are several Sanity-type mechanics.  Why not, using UA's system as a base, bring in some of the concepts introduced by these other books?

Oh, and Classes, Classes, and more Classes...

Submitted Legendary Weapons and their Prestige Classes.

Tainted Monsters and related Templates.

Different Codes of Honor.

Additional Backgrounds.

Tests for Prestige Classes can easily be expanded: If you create a test for any OGC Prestige Class, send it in and we'll add it to the list.

Would a project like this, to build upon and _expand_ the OGC from UA, be more acceptable?  'Cause the more I think of it, the more interested I get.


----------



## jgbrowning (Apr 19, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> So I don't see a downside to people obeying the law. I don't see it as unethical. And I certainly don't see it as sleazy.




As someone with 2 books (300 pages) of completely open material, I'd like to chime in...

I completely agree that using the license to it fullest (included ripping out PI and reprinting the entirety of a work) is legal, ethical, and part of my accepting the license. However, part of my using the license (beyond it's benefit in my sales) is for the benefit of the gamers to whom I'm writing. Were someone to actually rip one of my books wholesale without providing me a period of sell-through, my production of OGC material would _decrease._

Bluntly, I have to make enough money to keep writing/publishing material, be that OGC or not OGC. If forced, I will release the minimum amount of OGC to fulfull my obligations. By forced, I mean if someone decides to not be nice and allow me adequate sell-through time. This would be detrimental to both myself and the reader. I _want_ to release a lot of OGC, but I won't do so if it's fiscally damaging. I publish under the license because it's fiscally beneficial. When it ceases to be more beneficial than detrimental, I'll stop writing/publishing anything but a minimum of OGC.

Regardless of what people think morality-wise, ethics-wise, or legally-wise, this is one possible repercussion of ripping a book _en toto_ right after it comes out.

Obviously, I'm not WoTC. For them, IMHO, they have no reason to publish any OGC, ever again. People may think that publishing more OGC material may help in their goals of selling more Core books, but I don't think that's true (at least under this edition). There are now smaller companies (Green Ronin, Malhavoc, MEG, Bastion, Goodman, me ) that support off the OGL, and who release much more OGC than WoTC could produce. There's no "need" for more OGC from WoTC's view (In other words, how much would more OGC material increase sales of the core books, and more importantly, would the material's being OGC increase sales more than it being closed?). Again, IMHO, I think UA is a gift to the smaller publishers out there, and I for one, appreciate it.

I like Cregorach's 6 month waiting period. That's very kind of him. In fact, its very kind of all of you so far to not pull out a new books OGC and put it up for free, en toto. I really think we (publishers/authors/readers) all benefit from some restrait in the migration process from printed book to freely available OGC. It helps support the creation of more OGC, and hopefully, better OGC. Thus, the kindness shown by the readers to the publishers in this manner is also a kindness shown to themselves in the long run.

And again, let me reiterate in case my message is a bit muddled. Under the license, the material is open. Also, just because it's open, don't assume that treating it as such has no consequences even when such treatment is legal, ethical, and moral. As a publisher, I agree to the license because it benefits me and I extend my work to %100 OGC because I want to increase those benefits for the reader and other publishers. Once this becomes detrimental, my OGC %'s will have to change, or I have to stop publishing under the liscense. There's benefit to us all through a little kindness.

joe b.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 19, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Couldn't agree more. It is not only Not-Bad to make OGC easily reusable, it is Good. IMHO, the point of it is the game, not the publisher.



Perhaps the idea of "Open Source" is what scaring publishers and authors. They fear it may be counterproductive to have to lose control of their own IP if they associate it with the open source.

Can you balance the two?


----------



## Wasgo (Apr 19, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Well, assuming you meant "...between GNU and OGL...", somebody should really tell RedHat that they aren't selling software. Plenty of open-source software is also commercial. Now, admittedly, there are nsignificant differences in the media that make the case not an exact analogue.




Right, meant GNU. And I won't attack your analogue too much because you do admit it's flawed, but keep in mind the majority of Red Hat's money doesn't come from casual users, it comes from business users. It's primarily an enterprise platform. Compare that to Mandrake which targeted casual users and they nearly went bankrupt twice. They had to beg for money online. Users buying from Red Hat aren't buying the software or the source code; in most cases they're buying the tech support.

I think a lot of my concern on this project is the nature of Unearthed  Arcana itself. In the case of most books, production value is vital. But since AU is full of all sorts of things that can be taken in pieces, this is more of an issue. Since no one group will use all the rules (or even most of them), printing off what they need beceomes more convient. And out of all the projects to hurt, this is WotC's first major OGC product. Considering they don't have to acknowledge the OGL at all, it's a solid step in the right direction and I personally wouldn't want to discourage it.



> Do you consider the Pocket Players' Handbook to be unethical? Does it matter that one of the things WotC said right from the start [paraphrasing their FAQ] was that "anybody could take the entire contents of the D20SRD and publish their own players' handbook, but we're confident that our products' production values will still be better, and they won't hurt our sales"?




Quick point, there's a big differnce between the SRD and standard content. In terms of the core books, WotC is simply what most gamers will purchase. Even if there was an alternative Player's Handbook, with just as good production values and $10 cheaper, most with go with the original; they buy the brand name. On the other hand, take something like Green Ronin's Shaman's Handbook. The entire book was OGC and when it came out, someone republishing it would almost certainly hurt their sales. In the same vein, people don't need UA. It's a variant rules book, and if they could just download the rules they want online, there would be very little incentive to buy it. There isn't that same must own feeling the core books have.

Also, I personally think it's not exactly the nicest thing to do to put any of the PDF'd files into republished form. If they can still be bought, that still takes away (even just a little) income from the publisher. On the other hand, books that went into print, I think eventually putting their OGC online after they are no longer in print is a good thing. It's nice that this material might not fade into obscurity the way past editions did.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 19, 2004)

Great perspective, joe b.

If the system doesn't work, it doesn't work. The world doesn't end. If publishers can't make money because people are republishing their material for free, they'll stop using the license. And that's okay. That's what we had before, and the industry managed to survive this long. The license and the material released under it isn't going anywhere, so people who still find it beneficial will still use it.

There'll probably always be a mix of OGC and closed content in the marketplace, and that's a good thing, and it's pretty early days right now to be able to tell what percentage of which is optimal. Time will tell.


			
				woodelf said:
			
		

> There's a world of difference between the publisher saying "please don't just put all the OGC online for free until the book has mostly sold through" and "you are a bad person if you put the OGC online for free while the book is still new".



This very ably sums up my stance. Pointing out marketplace realities is not only fair, it's welcome. I WANT d20 creators to do well. I'm one myself. I want to know what I can do to help other creators do better. I just don't want the law getting confused with what's best for the hobby, and I definitely don't want murky moral judgements clouding what are crystal-clear legal issues.


----------



## Wasgo (Apr 19, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Actually, I was thinking about this earlier.  This is the kind of project that can actually be taken further, expanding on it.
> 
> For instance, UA only includes 4 Environmental Races (Aquatic, Arctic, Desert, Jungle), but I can think of a lot more: Mountain, Swamp, Forest, Island, etc.  Why not create/add more?
> 
> ...




This type of project is far more interesting. It adds value to the content and isn't just republishing it. Doing tainted monsters sound really quite cool.  OGC is great in that it allows for these types of projects. This is the thing though, where I see the use of OCG, is projects that encourage people to buy the original books, and I think this idea is great and very much keeping with that idea. The only other thing is I'd probably go a step further and not use any of the original text from UA, only the mechanics. Though I have to admit, that's less because I feel it's misused, and more because I like having only one tone in my documents.


----------



## Sledge (Apr 19, 2004)

I feel the need to chime in here. People bring books to the table.  Right now I'm thinking most people that use materials in a game prefer to actually have an original book, complete with the descriptions and context that may or may not make it online.  Putting stuff on the internet hasn't caused trouble yet, and I doubt it will.  I prefer the computer and have found that the majority of this information on very old books hasn't been put up yet.  The only ones you can find are the lame rip offs of actual books scanned in fully.  I get my pdfs by paying for them.  I will get new hardbound copies of the core books in the near future, because even I, who does everything on the computer and have character spellbooks and feat descriptions all printed out, still want those original books available.  So posting online seems unlikely to me to hurt sales.
With regards to copying, I've seen production schedules of small time companies.  By the time the book has been published, converted to OGC only, layed out and sent to the publishers, the first three months will likely be over.  I would expect such a book to only maybe go to the distributors 4 months down the road.  The distributors may not even carry it as they will still have sufficient stock of the original.  Clearly even at their best republished books just won't have any effect on the originals.
I think that if someone today released a full online reference document of UA it wouldn't keep me from buying the book.  It's only real influence could be to get me to buy the actual book.
I think if publishers would take a breath and let it go they would find that having their ideas published online would only do them good.  My evidence is simple.  I own numerous pdfs and print them out.  One such is Crimson Contracts.  This book is almost completely open content.  I could have asked someone out there to just e-mail me the whole thing, but the company still got my money.  You tell me why I bought it?  I may only use one or two spells, but the book as a whole is very important.  Just reading the stories in it gives me insight into the ideas behind the prestige classes and other items.  Having a simple list merely isn't sufficient.  I need the books.


----------



## Voadam (Apr 19, 2004)

Generally speaking print books sell an order of magnitude greater than a pdf. whereas for a small publisher 2,000 book sales is good, 200 pdf sales is huge for a small publisher. In general a majority of people prefer a physical book over a computer file.

The one time I have heard of online content being a detriment to physical book sales was when Atlas games put their Ars Magica (4th edition I believe) core book free on rpgnow at the same time they announced they would be releasing a revised 5th edition. Lots of people downloaded the free pdf but sales of the print book went down over what their predicted levels were for if they had not released the pdf and made the announcement.

John Nephew the president of Atlas games was very open about his number on that marketing experiment but even he could not isolate the impact of having it 100% free as a pdf or the announcement that it would soon be made obsolete by a new edition that drove down sales of the physical book. He did conclude that the two combined drove down sales of his print book and he did not plan on releasing the 5th edition book free as a pdf.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 20, 2004)

snip


----------



## woodelf (Apr 20, 2004)

jeffh said:
			
		

> If you strip out all the loaded words in your description of the second publisher, all they're doing is what the OGL, which the original publisher agreed to of their own free will, clearly and explicitly gives them permission to do.  They're not exploiting an obscure loophole, they're doing something that the OGL was deliberately designed to allow, that the people who created the OGL (by which I mean first and foremost Ryan Dancey) have been clear about allowing from the very beginning, and that according to comments in this thread, is very much in keeping with Dancey's own intentions and vision for the OGL.  [snip]
> 
> There is even a case to be made for the view that the only unethical one in your examples is the original publisher, who agrees to the OGL but then seeks to, in effect, back out of this agreement by trying to stop people from doing what their voluntary agreement to the license quite clearly allows them to do.   When politicians do this we call it "talking out of both sides of their mouth" or worse.  In more concrete terms, if WotC or Green Ronin don't want people to use their OGC, why are they releasing it under the OGL in the first place?




What he said. You can hardly complain about people reusing material according to the terms of the WotC OGL, given that you entered into it voluntarily.  Don't like the terms? Do without the D20SRD, or negotiate a separate license with WotC. But if you want the advantages (the cachet of "open content", reuse of others' content, and/or the market muscle of the D20 System logo), you get the "disadvantages" (OGC and/or D20STL).

Sorry this is a bit of a "me too" post, but i really think jeffh's statement needed emphasizing.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 20, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Yes, but what I think will be the consequences of this will be that publishers will start being more limited in what parts of their products become released under the OGL.  I guess it's wrong to trust humanity to not be greedy and exploitive.




Or optimistic. Tomato, tomahto. Heck, i'd say there's even an element of self-fulfilling prophecy going on here, given the level of communication between publishers and consumers, and their significant intermingling: I suspect that the more you bitch about people "stealing" your work, the more it'll happen, if only because of some malicious/mischievious/contrary sorts doing it just because you had the temerity to tell them not to. Likewise, if you simply expect people to follow their nobler impulses, IME they more often do.



> Basically, you are saying that it doesn't matter if the gaming industry goes bankrupt because Wizards was stupid for releasing such a license agreement.  Well congratulations then.  This short term thinking will be the death of the hobby.




Worrying only about WotC's survival is what i'd call "short-term thinknig". I can't speak for the person you were responding to, but IMHO those supporting open-content RPG development are the ones thinking about the long-term survival of RPGs. Sharing content, thus minimizing effort for new producers to contribute the New Great Thing, combined with the relatively low barrier to entry of PDF publishing are the two things saving the RPG, IMHO--not WotC/D&D3E.  If you're concerned about the long-term fate of RPGs, you should be considering how to keep them alive in the face of increasingly-interactive computer/console games, and certainly not throwing your eggs in one basket (i.e., company).  

If anything, WotC is working against this by, until Unearthed Arcana, not having D&D participate in the feedback loop of open-content development. And, IMHO, one of the best things that could happen to the RPG industry right now is if the D&D brand name disappeared--i honestly think that WotC is resting on D&D's laurels, getting sales disproportionate to the quality of its products because of the D&D label, and if they didn't have that mindshare advantage, they wouldn't have nearly the marketshare dominance they currently do. If the playing field were leveled in that regard, i think that *all* RPGs, but most especially D20 System ones, would become better.


----------



## jeffh (Apr 20, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> What he said...
> Sorry this is a bit of a "me too" post, but i really think jeffh's statement needed emphasizing.





  It's he!  (My full name is Jeff Heikkinen - you may, or may not, remember me from RGFD and/or rpg-create.)  And thanks.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 20, 2004)

jeffh said:
			
		

> It's he!  (My full name is Jeff Heikkinen - you may, or may not, remember me from RGFD and/or rpg-create.)  And thanks.




I make it a policy not to assume gender online based solely on handle--you just never know. Anyway, yep, i recognize the name.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 20, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> What he said. You can hardly complain about people reusing material according to the terms of the WotC OGL, given that you entered into it voluntarily.  Don't like the terms? Do without the D20SRD, or negotiate a separate license with WotC. But if you want the advantages (the cachet of "open content", reuse of others' content, and/or the market muscle of the D20 System logo), you get the "disadvantages" (OGC and/or D20STL).





All I know is that if a publisher asked me not to copy everything wholesale and post it on line, I would respect their wishes.  Maybe it doesn't qualify as a breach of ethics, or morals, but I would call anybody who actually did that sleazy, and I feel no guilt in stating that.  It's just common sense and curteousy.  

I have yet to see anybody defend this other than quoting the letter of the agreement, justifying it by saying "they won't lose sales", or some weird noble sense that the games should survive above the people who create them, or free and open sharing is for the good of mankind.



			
				woodelf said:
			
		

> Worrying only about WotC's survival is what i'd call "short-term thinknig". I can't speak for the person you were responding to, but IMHO those supporting open-content RPG development are the ones thinking about the long-term survival of RPGs. Sharing content, thus minimizing effort for new producers to contribute the New Great Thing, combined with the relatively low barrier to entry of PDF publishing are the two things saving the RPG, IMHO--not WotC/D&D3E...And, IMHO, one of the best things that could happen to the RPG industry right now is if the D&D brand name disappeared...




I was not talking about WoTC, but rather the entire gaming industry.  

If the gaming industry can't make a buck because people provide all the content for free, it will not get new people into this hobby.  If the for-profit companies die, gaming will become a more underground role.  It will end up becoming a much smaller sub-culture, and I suspect more people will leave than join.

If WoTC dies the hobby will take a huge blow and they will be consequences.  People have been wishing for the death of D&D/TSR/WoTC ever since they "made it big" and had the major market share.  If this ever were to come to pass, it won't be pretty and it will hurt the whole industry very badly.


----------



## DaveStebbins (Apr 20, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I do think the OGL is going to be a failure for Wizards. That's what's happening. I doubt they will use such an open license anymore, because what's happening is the great experiment is starting to fail.



Once you get past the invectives, I actually could see this happening. When 3E was released OGL there weren't many real third-party supplement sources. 3E has since created many viable third-party publishers. I could definitely see 4E being closed, with licenses available to third-party publishers. It would be a way of creating another revenue stream and also keeping the flow of new materials at whatever WotC considers a reasonable level. It might also be a way to keep third-party publishers from stepping on Wizards' toes by publishing a specific type of book which is on Wizards' drawing boards. I would hate to think of losing some of the awesome stuff that has been done by tiny publishers, but I could definitely see this scenario coming to pass.



			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> How people behave will probably determine the future of this license.



I doubt this. The future will depend on the numbers people come up to justfy their vision, and the credability behind those numbers. Peoples' opinions and feelings will color how they come up with their numbers, but that sort of stuff is notoriously easy to see through. The final decision is usually based upon whatever biases the head decision-maker has. And who is in charge is usually just corporate roulette.

(not that I'm cynical or anything...  )


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Apr 20, 2004)

*4th edition*

You know, I have to wonder if maybe this 4th edition thing isn't just a bugbear dreamed up to scare the kiddies (is bugbear OGC?  Yes?  Okay.).

The success of the 3rd edition has been in a large part due to the widespread availability of nifty stuff to buy to go along with it, as is obvious, and has been discussed.  But what would a move to a 4th edition look like?  Wizards would make announcements, Dragon would do a countdown, and everyone would be really curious...and then go back to playing 3rd ed, I wager.

To use another gaming paradigm, I look at it like a video game system.  If you release a brand new gaming box with a fast processor and sweet graphics, but there are no games for it, no one will buy it.  I remember that no one I knew bought a Nintendo 64, because the Playstation just simply had a better selection of games.  Nintendo 64 never did well, and they've done a much better job on the Gamecube in regard to third-party products to make sure that there's a robust software library for it.  Because without the support, the thing is just a little plastic box.

So that's what I see a closed 4th edition ending up as: a useless plastic box.  If it's not backward compatible with 3rd edition (and to be closed, it will have to be), it'll render useless hundreds of supplements, adventures, magazines, web content, and other miscellaneous publications that we've built up since 2000.  We'll have to start over again from scratch, junk our books, and start forking out for the new edition core books, splatbooks, supplements, adventures, etc.  Most of us did this already in 2000 (and again last year, if you count 3.5), so we're getting a bit fed up with it (and skinny of wallet).  Not to mention we'll have to learn an entirely new D&D system if the game is going to avoid being Open Content.  Not to mention that many of the non-rule items that make D&D what it is (Magic Missile, anyone?) are already permanently Open Content no matter what they do with the 4th edition.  They can keep their mind flayers.

Even if a 4th edition comes out, the excluded publishers (and probably the included ones, on the side) will continue to turn out great new D20 products and the D20 community will continue for at least a few years on its momentum, even with its big mover and shaker gone...perhaps for longer than a few years, perhaps for a long time.  Will I buy the 4th edition, with its shiny new books?  Or will I buy a D20 supplement about pirate ninjas that works with the other books I already have?

I don't know if people will be able to get excited about a 4th edition that's completely divorced from the 3rd edition.  I was only interested in the Playstation 2 because it would run my Playstation 1 games as well as giving me new stuff.


----------



## Samothdm (Apr 20, 2004)

> But there is also the fact that declaring something OGC is a potential selling point for a book. So let's say a customer picks up Skull&Bones and reads that 90% is OGC, he thinks "wow, that's so cool, I've read the OGL and that means I can get even more use out of these rules. I'll buy the book and use the OGC to create something cool in return."
> 
> So liberally declaring OGC is a potential selling point. It is something that is offered to me as a customer. "Buy this book, get all these cool toys, and 90% is OGC!"




A potential selling point for whom?  For a publisher who wishes to use those specific rules in a product that he is writing, yes.

I fail to see how a book having OGC is a selling point for a non-publisher customer.  It's irrelevant.  Good material (or "cool toys", as worded above) is good material, whether it's open or not open.  If it's good, it will get used in-game.  Period.

(With the noted exception of a small percentage of extremists who refuse to buy any non-OGC).  

So, then, for a non-publisher, the only reason that OGC is a "selling point" would be, "Hey, I can transcribe this entire book and post it for free."  

And, despite people who seem to think that there is no "spirit of the law", the person who transcribes and posts an entire book of OGC for free is past the boundaries of using OGC in good faith.  

I'll put it another way:  Anybody who is claiming that it's perfectably acceptable to copy and post the entire OGC portions of UA for free should also never, ever, complain about getting a speeding ticket, especially if they are only going 5 miles over the speed limit on an open country road with no other cars in site.

It comes down to common sense, people.  No one is asking you not to use open content from UA in your games, because they can't do that.  It's open.  What they're asking is to be reasonable and not provide for free what people should be willing to pay $24.46 to get on Amazon.  

The argument that having it in a format that is easily reusable makes sense from a _*publisher*_ standpoint, but then only publishers should be able to request it in that format from WotC.  And, quite honestly, I wouldn't see the need for a publisher to have the entire book in PDF/RTF format, but only the specific section that they were referencing.

To be put another way, take a class, feat, PrC, template, monster, or spell (or multiples of the same) and put them in your own book.  That's a perfectly reasonable use of OGC.

Having the entire OGC portions of the book posted for free online does not seem reasonable to me.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Apr 20, 2004)

Samothdm said:
			
		

> I'll put it another way:  Anybody who is claiming that it's perfectably acceptable to copy and post the entire OGC portions of UA for free should also never, ever, complain about getting a speeding ticket, especially if they are only going 5 miles over the speed limit on an open country road with no other cars in site.




So, what you're saying is, anyone claiming that it's okay to operate within the law shouldn't complain if they're caught if they break the law?  Um, okay.  I do agree that one should obey the law (with certain exceptions in the case of civil disobedience) and accept the penalty if one breaks the law.  I also agree that it's okay to do things that the law permits.  I think we can all agree on that, so let's try to stop dressing those statements up as arguments for or against this issue, because it's getting kind of silly.

The issue seems to be that on the one hand there are those who think that there's some sort of "gentlemen's agreement" that says that only publishers should be able to get their hands on open content, and/or that those publishers should have to comb through the books themselves to get it, despite what the OGL states (it states the contrary).  On the other hand there are those who say that they're entitled to do whatever they're entitled to do with open content, and that by declaring something open content, a publisher is in fact inviting them to do so.  Then there's the middle, who say that they have a right to treat open content like open content, but they will leave a polite time delay so that the publisher can make a profit on its work before the open content is distributed.

The middle ground looks to be the best.  It follows the rules to the letter, giving everyone access to the material they are legally entitled to.  It also provides the "gentlemen's" approach, by which the original publisher is given some respect and credit, as well as the chance to make the primary revenue from the OGC.

Now then, I think this is probably going to turn out to be a moot argument, because I don't anticipate a free .pdf replacing people's book-coveting behaviour.  If you want the book, you'll buy it.  If you don't, you won't.  But in the second case you might get the .pdf.  In the first case you also might, but you'll have the book, too.

Also, don't speed.  It's dangerous.  And you'll get a ticket.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 20, 2004)

People, people.

A. It's perfectly simple to NOT release material under the OGL. Anyone who wants to can do so any time they like. Nobody is being FORCED to use this license. You don't want your material getting distributed by others? Easy: don't use a license which says, "Anyone who wants to can distribute this material."

B. Accomodating the wishes of another person has nothing to do with the ethics of obeying the law. If Chris Pramas doesn't like what I've put up on my Skull & Bones campaign site, he's welcome to ask me to remove it. If Andy Smith wishes I hadn't created the Modern System Reference document, he can go right ahead and ask me to remove it.

I would certainly want a very good explanation as to why they no longer wished to live up to the terms they originally published their book under. If it was because they had misjudged the market and found that people redistributing their OGC was hurting their sales, I might take my sites down.

On the other hand, I might not. I might say, "Well, next time, don't tell people they can redistribute it, how about that?" I don't know what I would do because they haven't asked me to do that. Indeed, Andy Smith has written to me and offered advice on the online Modern SRD, so I assume in fact that he is perfectly fine with the fact that I have created a complete online edition of all the OGC in that book.

This does not surprise me, since I know that Mr. Smith understands the OGL very well.

C. If it turns out that releasing material using the OGL is not a good way to make money, publishers will stop doing it. And that's okay. There's very little "on the line" here -- the industry doesn't depend on any particular result to this experiment. If OGC doesn't make money, publishers who are trying to make money will stop creating it. They can't stop publishers who don't care about money from using existing OGC, nor can they stop those publishers from creating more OGC, so who cares?

Whether or not the mythical "4th Edition" is open or closed is utterly beside the point. That has no effect on the existing OGC. It doesn't matter. It won't be some terrible death knell for the industry. It will mean that future gamers who want to play this game will have to buy it. And that's okay.

Everything's okay, people. It's okay to support publishers you like, and it's okay to do what you will with OGC. It's okay to release open content, and it's okay to release closed content. I think it's silly to get huffy about people who are obeying the law, but as you will.

I think the best plan is to decide what you think is the right thing to do, and to go ahead and do it. If other people aren't playing by the rules, point it out. If you think the rules are bad, fix them. But don't call people names because they play by the rules. That just makes it look like you don't know what the rules are.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 20, 2004)

Samothdm said:
			
		

> I fail to see how a book having OGC is a selling point for a non-publisher customer. It's irrelevant. Good material (or "cool toys", as worded above) is good material, whether it's open or not open. If it's good, it will get used in-game. Period.



I'm not a publisher, but I play one on my website.

Seriously, as a non-business entity, OGC is _very_ important to me.  It determines what I can or can't put on my website.  I want my rules available to my players (for convienience) and to the community (for the hell of it).  Therefore, I am following the OGL.  And let me tell you, having the OGL is _great_ for fans.  It gives us far more potential than publishers do.  They need to worry about niche markets, general approval of the material, and having that material judged in comparison to what WotC declares the "Core" rules, sales, expenses, etc.  Nope, us fans only got one thing to worry about: Our own, individual, unique group, without care of profit or popularity.

Also, unlike the dying days of TSR, I don't have to worry about getting a cease and desist letter, unless I break the rules that I agreed to follow just like everyone else (and fixing a pdf within the 30 day cure period is easy enough, even if that means cutting out an entire section to make the deadline in order to replace it later).  Heck, the OGL lets me go _well_ beyond the terms of "Fair Use" within a legal set of agreed upon rules.



> (With the noted exception of a small percentage of extremists who refuse to buy any non-OGC).



"Extremist" is a loaded term, wouldn't you say?  In this day and age, it's often used in conjunction with "Terrorist".

Oh, and as an FYI, I'm not opposed to buying non-OGC.  Most of the books I have are mostly IP material (settings and setting-specific, etc.) that is either PI or otherwise simply not OGC.  This doesn't phase me in the slightest; indeed, quality PI/closed content can be entertaining, inspiring, and even sometimes educational depending on the subject matter _(Stone to Steel_, for instance)_._  A company producing lots of good stuff like that doesn't need to worry about their OGC being online because the value of the book isn't dependant on the OGC but on the non-Open portion of the product.



> So, then, for a non-publisher, the only reason that OGC is a "selling point" would be, "Hey, I can transcribe this entire book and post it for free."



Or, "Hey, I can put all the rules my group uses in one place and not get our arses sued off for it."



> And, despite people who seem to think that there is no "spirit of the law", the person who transcribes and posts an entire book of OGC for free is past the boundaries of using OGC in good faith.



And what of a distribution such as the Pocket Player's Handbook?  It's just a prettied up SRD, after all.  And it's not free; it's a commercial product.

Is _that_ past the boundaries of using OGC in good faith?

Of course not.

Would the proposed (impending?!) SRD+ Project be beyond those boundaries?



> I'll put it another way: Anybody who is claiming that it's perfectably acceptable to copy and post the entire OGC portions of UA for free should also never, ever, complain about getting a speeding ticket, especially if they are only going 5 miles over the speed limit on an open country road with no other cars in site.



At the same time, people driving 40 MPH on the Freeway shouldn't complain about everyone else driving so fast.



> It comes down to common sense, people. No one is asking you not to use open content from UA in your games, because they can't do that. It's open. What they're asking is to be reasonable and not provide for free what people should be willing to pay $24.46 to get on Amazon.



I have a supplement here.  It's got 94 pages of 100% text OGC (only art and graphics declared PI...  Well, the cover too, but that's not part of the 94 pages.).  I go through it and realize I'm going to re-use 90% of the product.

Alright, I get an idea.  I contact the publisher and ask that I be allowed to list his product as the "needed to run" item (essentially gaining a seperate agreement as allowed in Section 7 of the OGL).  I explained my setting and adjoining rules are online.  That their rules would be online for free if no such statement was allowed.

They said, "no".  Knowing that I would be transcribing _most_ of the material from that book, they actually gave me the nod and said to do it, indicating that they had _no_ concern about online material effecting their sales.

Now, here we have Bastion Press (and the product is _Alchemy & Herbalists_), standing on one side of the issue saying "go ahead".  Then we have another publisher (Green Ronin via the link to CP's post) standing on the other side asking "don't".

Now, obviously, I see two completely opposing views on the matter, coming from two successful publishing sources _within_ the OGL/d20 industry.  Neither are right, as they cannot speak for anyone else in the matter, but neither are wrong.  We simply have a case of one publisher being concerned that online material will effect their sales, while we have another publisher that is confident that it won't.

As such, any claims that this should not be done out of some form of "respect" for the publisher, or fair play, or anything other reason outside of the law, is essentially saying that we should cater to those that either (A) didn't understand the implications of the OGL (which I can assure you, WotC _does_ indeed understand it), or (B) keep hoping the _inevitability_ of Open Gaming "source libraries" won't occur; doing so, I might add, despite publishers like Fantasy Flight (who openly acknowledge website posting of their material _within_ their material) or Bastion (who are so unconcerned about potential online-availability impact as to turn down what essentially would be free advertising).



> The argument that having it in a format that is easily reusable makes sense from a _*publisher*_ standpoint, but then only publishers should be able to request it in that format from WotC. And, quite honestly, I wouldn't see the need for a publisher to have the entire book in PDF/RTF format, but only the specific section that they were referencing.



 Publisher != Professional.

And see my reply on Page 1 of this thread concerning the work load that would hit our dear friend in WotC Legal, Andy Smith.  The poor kid is probably going bald as it is...



> To be put another way, take a class, feat, PrC, template, monster, or spell (or multiples of the same) and put them in your own book. That's a perfectly reasonable use of OGC.



Would a collection of OGC in the form of an online library fall into that equation?



> Having the entire OGC portions of the book posted for free online does not seem reasonable to me.



Depends on the book.  However, there is something to consider.  Take the list I made earlier (it's on page 2 or 3, I believe) and consider that most of that material _will be_ on my website just because I _am_ using it.  Then consider another part posted on someone else's site for the same reason.  And another, and another.  Eventually, you're going to reach a point where the entire thing is available anyways; At the very least, the part you are interested in will likely be out there somewhere.  And that's why I'd like to see this project and others like it be done; It would save so-much transcription time for so many people.

And, to be honest, I don't think this should stop with UA.  I'd really like to see this be the kick-off for something new in Open Gaming.


----------



## The Shadow (Apr 20, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> All I know is that if a publisher asked me not to copy everything wholesale and post it on line, I would respect their wishes.  Maybe it doesn't qualify as a breach of ethics, or morals, but I would call anybody who actually did that sleazy, and I feel no guilt in stating that.




I'm astonished.  How can something that is not a breach of ethics or morals be "sleazy"?  Is that term perhaps truly a synonym for "things JohnRTroy doesn't like"?  If so, I would submit that that is a rather idiosyncratic use of words, bound to confuse others.



> It's just common sense and curteousy.




How can it conceivably be discourteous to someone to do something (which is not unethical or immoral) that they have, of their own free will, explicitly spelled out that you may do, and indeed have positively INVITED you to do?

As someone else said, I'm all for promoting ethical behavior over the law.  But I don't see what's unethical about treating open content as, well, "open".  Nobody has had their arm twisted into releasing material as open content - it was a choice on their part, and I doubt it was a choice anybody made with eyes shut.

The six-month "grace period" idea is a splendid one.  It is both generous and practical.  But it's not common courtesy, not the minimum level of decency, it is generosity - going beyond the minimum.  And this is the behavior you have seen fit to call "sleazy" and "unethical" - though you seem to have retreated somewhat from the latter.

I'll tell you what I find discourteous, and indeed rude - it's seeing people called names and their integrity called into question for no good cause.



> I have yet to see anybody defend this other than quoting the letter of the agreement,




What is so difficult to understand about this concept?  It escapes me.  You make it sound like poor publishers out there are releasing open content while being hoodwinked, or led astray, or deceived by fine print.  In fact, that they're being defrauded.

Do you really think publishers are unable to read the letter of the document?  Or that they are incapable of understanding it?  Sounds to me like you're insulting them at least as much as you're insulting the people here.  Are you unaware that the OGL was CREATED by a game publisher because they hoped - apparently successfully - to make money off of it?

Publishers use the OGL because they think it will improve their bottom line.  Maybe, in some cases, they turn out to be wrong.  That's not because of any "discourtesy" or "sleaziness" on the part of their customers, it's because they made a bad business decision.  Happens all the time.  It's not a tragedy.

To hear you talk, anyone would think that open content was released only out of desperation, ignorance, stupidity, or duress.  If you were right, the demise of the OGL would be the best thing that could possibly happen - but the people being unethical would be the people who created it, not the people who make use of it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 20, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Actually, this is what I predict,
> 
> D&D4 will be closed.  The OGL will lose it's power as the core game becomes obsolete.  Only the most die-hard advocates who also publish OGL will keep the game alive.



Also the most successful, especially those that have taken what is already OGC and turn it into a second-generation _d20_ rules engine. In fact, there have been a spawn of two-gen _d20_ rulesets: _Spycraft, Mutants & Masterminds_ aka _M&M Superlink_ (not true to the original but still popular in its own right), _BESM d20_ (use of character points to allow more PC's options), etc.

What's done cannot be undone ... like Linux. And as long as we have more contributors willing to contribute more OGC into the fold, the better.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 20, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> If this stops them from releasing future materials as OGC, then it would just lend credence to what some have suspected from the start: they want to eat their cake and have it too. If they truly believe in open-content development, and want to promote it, then they can't very well complain when it occurs.  Doing so amounts to cashing in on the cachet of "open source" without actually supporting the ideals. [Which, given the details of the WotC OGL, i actually believe they _are_ doing.]



Of course, one has to note: the original employee roster that released the OGL and d20STL back in 1999-2000 have now dwindled to less than a handful. Also noted, not everyone in WotC supports the Open Gaming Movement.


----------



## Dogbrain (Apr 20, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I just don't want the law getting confused with what's best for the hobby, and I definitely don't want murky moral judgements clouding what are crystal-clear legal issues.





However, frothing-mad, narrow-minded fanatics want EXACTLY that to happen.  They want to twist the law to say what they mean it to say.  Nobody forces anyone to publish under OGL.  It's a free choice.  Anyone who publishes under OGL freely accepts all implications, thereof.


----------



## Dogbrain (Apr 20, 2004)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> So, what you're saying is, anyone claiming that it's okay to operate within the law shouldn't complain if they're caught if they break the law?




Sounds good to me.  Or maybe there are people so stupid that they think that operating within the OGL is breaking the law.


----------



## Setanta (Apr 20, 2004)

> So, what you're saying is, anyone claiming that it's okay to operate within the law shouldn't complain if they're caught if they break the law? Um, okay.




I think the point here is about all the people that are basically saying the 'spirit' of the OGL is irrelevant, and only the letter of the agreement matters. I imagine a lot of the people who staunchly stand by the OGL as a legal way of getting stuff for free are also people who complain if they're pulled over going 5 mph (or even 8 kph) over the speed limit in broad daylight on an open road, saying "But I was driving perfectly safely!" That's a double standard. The OGL was not created for people to get free RPG stuff (though it legally allows that to an extent); it was created so that publishers could re-use each others material so that lots of people could publish for the same system, a system which in the end sells more player's handbooks for WotC. 

I doubt anyone thinks there's anything wrong with someone putting OGC on their campaign websites so that all their players (even ones without the books) are on the same page. 

However, I know I'd rather not see someone transcribe the entire text (or at least the OGC part) of UA or any other D20 product and simply post it for anyone to take. That hurts the whole D20 community, as it makes it less likely companies will release large quanitities of OGC, and more likely they'll release broken OGC. Whether releasing someone's OGC in this way *actually* affects sales or not, some publishers will have the perception that it does, and that's bad enough. Sure, they should know going in that it's legal for people to do it, but that doesn't change the fact that some publishers clearly don't like it, and might be more likely to avoid it as best they can in the future.

This is particularly important with regards to WotC. Some day, there will be a fourth edition. Hopefully, not for several more years, but some day, it will come. When it does, it's better for us as gamers if they continue to support the OGL. They're under no obligation to do so. Sure, they can't revoke the OGL, but it doesn't mean they have to continute supporting it. They don't have to ever add another word to it. If they start to feel that releasing stuff as OGC is hurting their sales, they'll probably stop releasing stuff as OGC, and that hurts us gamers and all the non-WotC D20 publishers.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 20, 2004)

Some ideas i'm tossing around with regardig 'grace' periods for OGC products. Guide lines like these should keep publishers motivated to actually think about what they designate OGC. Please keep in mind that these are guidelines and not 'laws'.

*One year grace period:* Those products that designate everything as OGC except company name and product name. _Example: A Magical Society: Ecology and Culture_

*Half year grace period:* Those products that designate all rules related material as OGC and don't 'cripple' it by designating things like spell and monster names as IP. _Example: Unearthed Arcana or Book of the Righteous_

*Three months grace period:* Those products that designate all rules related material as OGC and 'cripple' it by designating things like all spell and all monster names as IP. Or aren't clearly designating OGC. _Example: Book of Strongholds & Dynasties_

*Six weeks grace period:* Those products that designate all rules related material as OGC and 'cripple' it by designating things like all spell and all monster names as IP. And aren't clearly designating OGC. _Example: Cry Havoc_

*No grace period:* Those products that make it a point to not clearly designate OGC. _Example: Some of the older Mongoose and Malhavoc products._


----------



## woodelf (Apr 20, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Heck, the OGL lets me go _well_ beyond the terms of "Fair Use" within a legal set of agreed upon rules.
> [snip]
> As such, any claims that this should not be done out of some form of "respect" for the publisher, or fair play, or anything other reason outside of the law, is essentially saying that we should cater to those that either (A) didn't understand the implications of the OGL (which I can assure you, WotC _does_ indeed understand it),




Just to pick nits: the WotC OGL is only a _mostly_-agreed-upon set of rules--there are still quite a few ambiguous bits. And, most specifically, i'm not confident that WotC *does* understand it perfectly. Their latest PI declaration with the revised D20SRD took almost everyone by surprise, as it seems to be not supportable by the license, implying that either (1) they don't understand the license, (2) they understand it but don't like it and are hoping no one will challeng them on it, or (3) the license is poorly worded, and doesn't say what it's supposed to mean, so everyone else doesn't understand it--raising the question of whether the intent or the wording of a contract is the important part, if the drafter does a poor job of translating the intent into wording.



> And what of a distribution such as the Pocket Player's Handbook?  It's just a prettied up SRD, after all.  And it's not free; it's a commercial product.
> 
> Is _that_ past the boundaries of using OGC in good faith?
> 
> Of course not.



Yeah, i'm still waiting for an answer on that one, too. But, when talking about subjective qualities like "good faith", neither can you simply declare that it clearly isn't stepping over the line--perhaps it is (even though it's perfectly legal). Though i'm inclined to say it isn't, seeing as how WotC said, right from teh start, "sure, you can do that", and qualified it not with "...but we don't want you to" but rather "...but you'll fail".


----------



## eryndel (Apr 20, 2004)

I'm not sure if I see how distributing the OGC part of UA is harmful at least to what I perceive the plan was for UA.  I figured UA was released mostly OGC in an attempt to distribute much of these house rules into the systems and settings of other peoples games, primarily other publisher's settings.   Having a large number of people who have access to that can only increase the potential appeal that any one house rule might have.  More appeal for a rule, and the higher likelyhood a publisher might include in their source books.  

Now, the question than is, if it was freely distributed, why would anyone bother to pick up the book, and so it would seem that this method would kill sales for the book.  But there are a number of secondary reasons that would bolster sales.  Though this might change in the future, generally electronic media isn't preferable to traditional media.  I personally would much prefer a book than a pdf, though having both is handy.  I know a lot of people who were happy to play D&D off of the SRD while money was tight and then later pick up a PHB.  So, likely a sizeable number of  people introduced to UA rules through free sources will eventually end up buying the hardcover when money permits, driving sales up.

Also, I can't imagine any later edition of D&D leaving what they started here with the OGL.  If they did, I think they'd run the significant risk of leaving D&D behind.  If 4th ed was not open, all the myriad companies who currently profit off of 3.X ed would be prohibited from making the switch to 4th, and thus would still have to produce material for 3.X.   Anyone who makes good use of these settings and sourcebooks would then, by neccesity, also not make the switch to 4th ed.  I'm not certain how much WotC dominates the d20 community - assuredly more than any one company but surely not more that all the other companies combined.  This line of thinking would imply that a switch to a closed 4th ed would only bring a minority (perhaps a significant minority) of D&D players with.  Maybe I'm being naive, but this doesn't seem to be a good business move.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 20, 2004)

Samothdm said:
			
		

> A potential selling point for whom?  For a publisher who wishes to use those specific rules in a product that he is writing, yes.
> 
> I fail to see how a book having OGC is a selling point for a non-publisher customer.  It's irrelevant.  Good material (or "cool toys", as worded above) is good material, whether it's open or not open.  If it's good, it will get used in-game.  Period.




That's easy. OGC is good because other companies can build on it and improve it, and/or focus on what they're good at, rather than having to re-invent the wheel (or build wheels just so that they have a vehicle for their nifty new steering mechanism, to butcher the analogy). Therefore, the more that publishers actually build on one anothers' content, the better, in the long run, the game products, and therefore the game, for the consumer. Therefore, you should encourage the publishers to have much OGC, so that there is material to freely build upon. Therefore, you should prefer books that have not only good material, but good OGC. It's in your own self-interest as a consumer: more OGC now means better RPG books in the future.



> And, despite people who seem to think that there is no "spirit of the law", the person who transcribes and posts an entire book of OGC for free is past the boundaries of using OGC in good faith.



What about the person who has a Cool New Idea which is a superset of someone else's Cool New Idea? IOW, what if you have a geniunely innovative contribution to make, but doing so would involve duplicating all (or nearly all) of someone else's product?



> I'll put it another way:  Anybody who is claiming that it's perfectably acceptable to copy and post the entire OGC portions of UA for free should also never, ever, complain about getting a speeding ticket, especially if they are only going 5 miles over the speed limit on an open country road with no other cars in site.




No, they shouldn't complain about getting a speeding ticket. They should complain that the speed limit is too low on that road, or demand the enaction of graduated licenses so that better drivers can go faster legally. Or accept the speed limit, and the ticket.

I've got no sympathy for anyone who breaks the law, gets caught, and whines about it. I frequently speed [on the job--there is no need for me to speed the rest of the time]. The consequences, should i get caught, are far more severe than for most anyone else (a <5mph-over ticket would cost me roughly $1000, because i drive for a living). Sure, i'll avail myself of legal remedies, should i get a ticket (pleading it down a notch, if i can), but i'm not gonna complain because i got caught doing something i knew i shouldn't've. I have very little respect for the people who race around, and then slow down the minute a cop comes into view: if you believe that you can safely drive faster than the speed limit, have the courage of your convictions and challenge the law: take it to court, push for legislation to change it, or lobby for a change in public opinion. If you don't believe that you can safely drive at that speed, then don't do it. And, whichever you do, accept the consequences. Not just speeding tickets, but accidents and injuries. I've got a real problem with people who complain about "speed traps". Were you speeding? Did you know it? Then you earned the ticket--the cops had nothing to do with it.

Likewise, don't complain because people reuse content according to a license you've voluntarily released yoru work under. You shouldn't be stupid--if people are killing you because of it, change how you use the license (such as making less of your book OGC, as one poster suggested). And, likewise, the reuser should consider consequences (such as providing an incentive to decrease the amount of OGC in future works). 



> Having the entire OGC portions of the book posted for free online does not seem reasonable to me.




Reasonable? Yes. It's _supposed_ to be "open". Sensible? Maybe, maybe not--Grey Ghost managed to get off the ground by publishing a relatively no-frills hardcopy edition of a ruleset that had been available for free for years, and remains available for free to this day. It is not at all clear-cut that free access to the content inherently destroys sales of a book version of the content.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 20, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Of course, one has to note: the original employee roster that released the OGL and d20STL back in 1999-2000 have now dwindled to less than a handful. Also noted, not everyone in WotC supports the Open Gaming Movement.




Ack! You're right: i've got to quit treating corporate entities the same as real entities. As their composition changes, so too can their attitudes, without any intentional deception on their part. And, in fairness, one can change one's mind, especially given new facts. IOW, i shouldn't completely discount the possibility that the original decision was made in good faith based on insufficient data, and that ~4yrs of actual data could change that decision.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 20, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> I think the point here is about all the people that are basically saying the 'spirit' of the OGL is irrelevant, and only the letter of the agreement matters.



Think of it this way: If there is a "spirit" of the OGL, it is the opening of game rules for redistribution by other sources, which the OGL permits and promotes, while protecting the artistic investment (fiction, backstory, art, etc.) and corporate image (logos, icons, company names, etc.) under the umbrella of Product Identity.

If the "spirit" of the OGL is about anything else, it's not mentioned in the OGL itself.

Here's an example: In my own works, I make it _clear_ where Closed Material ends and OGC begins.  I do my best to minimize PI within the OGC.  I make OGC re-use easy, simple, and clear.

Yet my big project of the day (after cleaning up the first draft release of the Aedon Bestiary) is to transcribe a set of alternate magical abilities from a book that has the previously mentioned "Rules are OGC, text is not" condition on it.

Who has the "spirit" of the OGL in mind: Me or this particular publisher?

Now, here's a question: If I went through this entire book and "uncrippled" everything in it, effectively making a 100% OGC resource from it, am I going against the "spirit" of the OGL by transcribing all the rules from a single book or am I going with the "spirit" of the OGL by opening up content that was previously difficult to re-use?

To which I add: Those who believe that they can in any regards, either through the law or by way of preaching morality and ethics, retain control of Open Content _after_ they have opened said content is fooling themselves.  Open Content is part of a "shared body of work" and what can or can't be done with that content is dictated not by some vague, subjective view of what is right and wrong, moral, ethical, petty, or sleazy, but by the license that _everyone_ that has released material under has agreed.



> I imagine a lot of the people who staunchly stand by the OGL as a legal way of getting stuff for free are also people who complain if they're pulled over going 5 mph (or even 8 kph) over the speed limit in broad daylight on an open road, saying "But I was driving perfectly safely!" That's a double standard.



No, it's not.  The person going over the speed limit is breaking the law and trying to say "I only broke it a little" to get out of their ticket.  By contrast, reproducing/redistributing OGC is not against the law because the OGL is written _specifically_ to permit and promote that very course of action.



> The OGL was not created for people to get free RPG stuff (though it legally allows that to an extent); it was created so that publishers could re-use each others material so that lots of people could publish for the same system, a system which in the end sells more player's handbooks for WotC.



And this is effected how?

Question: How many people that _didn't_ buy the _Manual of the Planes_ now have access to Planar Rules because WotC themselves uploaded the material?

Question: How many people that _didn't_ buy the _Epic Level Handbook_ now have access to Epic Rules because WotC themselves uploaded the material?

Question: How many people have downloaded illegal copies of entire books, copyrighted material and Product Identity in-total, rather than obtaining the OGC material in a legal manner (which _inlcudes_ SRD-styled downloads)?

Every publisher should be concerned about their books being scanned and circulated via p2p programs (and pdf publishers have it especially hard in this sense, as their material doesn't need to be scanned); none of them, however, should be concerned with rules-transcriptions being circulated within the bounds of the OGL because those bounds were agreed upon by them when they included the OGL in their work.

Heck, there's a company out there (can't remember which) that released the OGC part of their book _prior_ to the release of the actual book (firearms rules, I believe), and re-use of those rules were already in motion when the book hit the shelves.  I can't remember what product it was, but it would be interesting to see if their sales figures were effected by this or not.



> I doubt anyone thinks there's anything wrong with someone putting OGC on their campaign websites so that all their players (even ones without the books) are on the same page.
> 
> However, I know I'd rather not see someone transcribe the entire text (or at least the OGC part) of UA or any other D20 product and simply post it for anyone to take. That hurts the whole D20 community, as it makes it less likely companies will release large quanitities of OGC, and more likely they'll release broken OGC.



The term is "crippled"...  "Broken" is for bad rules that don't work well with the rest of the rules.

Now, as for a company turning draconian over this issue, it would actually put that company into a poor light.  After all, they are profiting _from_ Open Gaming but they are hesitant to _add_ to Open Gaming.  Do you really think such a business model is good for Open Gaming to begin with?  I'd argue that basing the production of OGL'd products in the _hopes_ that your material won't be reproduced and not planning your business model with that _inevitability_ in mind isn't taking the realities of the situation into proper consideration.  They would seem to have made the error of believing that Open Gaming is a company-only playground and that terms and conditions apply to Open Gaming that are not in any way, shape, or form manifest within the license itself or projected by any controlling entity within the community.



> Whether releasing someone's OGC in this way *actually* affects sales or not, some publishers will have the perception that it does, and that's bad enough.



Bad for those that have that perception, you mean, as they have obviously established a business model that assumes some degree of control over their OGC that they don't really have.  Which returns to the point I've made a dozen times: Make the non-OGC portions of your work viable beyond the reproduction of the OGC-portions, and the product will survive longer, better, and stronger.

If anything, the most viable way to publishers to "cap off" the lack of control is to permit co-adaptability statements (Ex: "This adventure requires rules from Skull & Bones by Green Ronin.").  This would provide the publisher with a safety-net of sorts; the re-user, instead of reproducing the rules content, is able to simply make the declaration and then build off of the source.  There are several examples of this, such as GR's M&M Superlink, and the pending _Fields of Blood_ license.  How many people would love to see such a thing for Malhavoc's _Arcana Unearthed_?

There are a lot of books that I would rather make references to (dozens of them, in fact, plugging them through my material while benefiting from their OGC without having to reproduce it).  But the granting of such permission is currently the exception, not the norm, and that's in the hands of the companies, not the fans.



> Sure, they should know going in that it's legal for people to do it, but that doesn't change the fact that some publishers clearly don't like it, and might be more likely to avoid it as best they can in the future.



Honestly?  More power to them.  No one should enter into a legal agreement they don't like.

By the same coin, however, they shouldn't complain about an agreement they made while fully aware of the implications ahead of time.



> This is particularly important with regards to WotC. Some day, there will be a fourth edition. Hopefully, not for several more years, but some day, it will come. When it does, it's better for us as gamers if they continue to support the OGL. They're under no obligation to do so. Sure, they can't revoke the OGL, but it doesn't mean they have to continute supporting it. They don't have to ever add another word to it. If they start to feel that releasing stuff as OGC is hurting their sales, they'll probably stop releasing stuff as OGC, and that hurts us gamers and all the non-WotC D20 publishers.



No, it doesn't.  This is like saying that php-Nuke is useless because part of the original team broke away and started Post-Nuke.  The worst that will happen is that WotC will turn away from contributing to the rather large body of work that, aside from the occassional Core update, isn't really supported by them very much to begin with.  If a few uptight people go with the "Well, D&D isn't _that_ anymore, it's _this_..." mentality, so what?  They, too, are walking away from a large body of work in favor of a smaller, more limited body of work, and that's their loss, not ours.

Even though I doudt 4E won't be Open, here's my prediction in regards to what will happen if such is the case: D&D will stop being the "leader" brand name and fall to the wayside as the d20 System and Open Gaming remain friendly to OGL Publishers and fansites.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 20, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I never felt is was in the spirit of the OGL to allow people to blatently rip off the content of books and put them out there for free on-line for people to use.  Nor was the spirit to provide a new game system.
> 
> I believe the true spirit of the OGL was to allow the following:
> 
> ...




If that's the case, why did they make a viral license? If all they wanted was sourcebooks for D&D3E, why not release the content under a license that allows free reuse, subject to certain restrictions (such as those in the D20STL), but without any requirement to make those supplement open-content?

The actual actions pursued don't support your hypothesis of the policies behind them. Why release your content under a license specifically modeled after the GPL, if not to encourage GPL-style [re]use? Why divorce the licensing restrictions (the D20STL) from the content (the D20SRD) if you are only interested in promoting your brand? Why have the D20STL and WotC OGL be separate licenses at all?



> Depending on what happens with UA on-line, I fear what will happen now is Wizards will no longer release OGL product for any new 3.5 products, and I'll bet D&D 4.0 will not be released under the SRD and OGL.




Possibly. Perhaps by then, the combined might of D20 System publishers will be sufficient that, given the choice between a more-restricted D&D license, or continuing to publish/expand on D20 System stuff, D20 System will be the choice. Ideally*, D20 System will trump D&D in the long run, brand-wise, and the makers of D&D will have to seriously consider *not* using an evolution of it for their next edition.

* n.b.: i said "ideally"--i have no illusions that it is likely.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 20, 2004)

Maggan said:
			
		

> UA is a trial. And I think it is fair of WotC or individuals attached to WotC to let that trial run its course without trying to influence the outcome. How else will we know?




What constitutes "without trying to influence the outcome"? Not making the OGC freely available? Not dissuading others from making it freely available? Not helping others to make it freely available?



> And what is fair? And to whom? WotC? The customers? Other publishers? The OGL movement?
> 
> I don't know. I honestly don't know. I would like to see a huge repositry of OGC collected in one place. All OGC ever published. Would this break the companies producing OGC? I hope not, because if it does, someting is very wrong with the building blocks that this OGL-thing is resting on.




Well, if that's your standard of "very wrong" then i'd say something _is_ very wrong with the whole WotC OGL thing. Because, really, i think that most publishers are operating on teh assumption that they don't have to worry about wholesale republication (free or commercial) because of the barrier of effort required. And they are therefore behaving based on the assumption that, for the most part, it is a non-issue--that any wholesale republication that does occur will do so after their product is basically done selling anyway. If much or all OGC were to get rereleased in free form shortly after the product is, i think the system would break, or change.


----------



## woodelf (Apr 20, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I think of it akin to an "all you can eat" plan.  You can technically eat all the food at the buffet, but you tend to know when you've done too much.




Huh? If someone sets up an "all you can eat" buffet, and charges a flat fee, i'm supposed to stop eating before i'm full, just because i'm a big eater? Why? Because the restaurant didn't really know what they were doing? Because they don't actually mean "all you can eat"?


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 20, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Huh? If someone sets up an "all you can eat" buffet, and charges a flat fee, i'm supposed to stop eating before i'm full, just because i'm a big eater?



 No, you're supposed to stop eating because otherwise, you'll turn into a big, fat slob.

See, it's the same with OGC -- if you use too much open game content you'll turn into a big, fat open game slob. And then none of the cool kids will want to play with you and you'll never get a date and you'll live your life in loneliness and THEN you'll be sorry.

You'll see.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 20, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Just to pick nits: the WotC OGL is only a _mostly_-agreed-upon set of rules--there are still quite a few ambiguous bits. And, most specifically, i'm not confident that WotC *does* understand it perfectly. Their latest PI declaration with the revised D20SRD took almost everyone by surprise, as it seems to be not supportable by the license, implying that either (1) they don't understand the license, (2) they understand it but don't like it and are hoping no one will challeng them on it, or (3) the license is poorly worded, and doesn't say what it's supposed to mean, so everyone else doesn't understand it--raising the question of whether the intent or the wording of a contract is the important part, if the drafter does a poor job of translating the intent into wording.



See, I think the basis of it (OGC is shared, PI is not) is agreed upon by all (at least, that much is clear enough that there is no real debate).  The rest falls into details.  It's this ambiguity that has me more open to the concept of "crippled" OGC than others are; Of course, nothing prevents me from "uncrippling" those same rules, and I personally am opposed to releasing my own material "crippled".

As for WotC's PI designation, I see a 4th possibility: on occassion, I stumble upon something in the SRD that isn't supposed to be there (page numbers, book references, etc.), so the PI designation could very well just be a safety net for oversights in the pre-SRD scrub down, preventing terms/titles from becoming OGC because of an editing error.  Although it's not a perfect example, we can consider the fact that, because of certain spells, the Shadow Plane, Ethereal Plane, Elemental Planes, Astral Plane and Outer Planes _in concept and name_ were already OGC long before the MotP material was ported into the SRD.  I also recall, after Mind Flayers, Displacer Beasts, and other critters were removed from the Draft SRD and thus never really released, that "final" versions of some things made mention of "the skin of a Displacer Beast" and another section (the _summon [X]_ spells, I do believe) still listed creatures that weren't OGC (in short, the _names_ of these things _are_ OGC because they appeared in the released SRD, but the things themselves are not).

Does the "safety net" theory seem close to mark?



> Yeah, i'm still waiting for an answer on that one, too. But, when talking about subjective qualities like "good faith", neither can you simply declare that it clearly isn't stepping over the line--perhaps it is (even though it's perfectly legal). Though i'm inclined to say it isn't, seeing as how WotC said, right from teh start, "sure, you can do that", and qualified it not with "...but we don't want you to" but rather "...but you'll fail".



I seem to recall that interview (Ryan Dancey, here at ENWorld, right?  Can't find it in the archives anymore...).  At any rate, I don't think it's as "over the line" as it may appear.  After all, it's purpose (small formatted rules content for easy portability) is clearly beyond the capability of the Player's Handbook (full sized and loaded with access information that may or may not be relevant to your individual game, such as Grayhawk deities and the like).

So, let's quantify the question with a few more examples:

Is Green Ronin's _Pocket Grimoire: Arcane_ over that line?  How about their _Pocket Grimoire: Divine_?  _Pocket Magica_?

Is Mongoose's _Ultimate Feats_ or _Ultimate Prestige Classes_ over the line?

I guess I don't see there being a question in regards to compiling OGC for distribution; the companies are doing it, have been doing it, and will continue to do it.  So it's either wrong (companies and fans can't do it) or it's right (companies and fans can do it), but it can't be right for some (companies can) and wrong for others (fans can't).  Mongoose has done it.  Green Ronin has done it.  d20X is doing it.  Ryan Dancey is (presumably, based on his proposed idea back in January) doing it (then again, he might not).  Cergorach is doing it, as stated in this thread.  And who knows how many others.

To which, I again state: Any business model that fails to take the re-distribution of OGC into account is a poorly thought out business model when applied to the Open Gaming environment which is designed around the concept of OGC re-distribution.


----------



## Setanta (Apr 20, 2004)

> _Bendris Noulg wrote_
> Think of it this way: If there is a "spirit" of the OGL, it is the opening of game rules for redistribution by other sources, which the OGL permits and promotes, while protecting the artistic investment (fiction, backstory, art, etc.) and corporate image (logos, icons, company names, etc.) under the umbrella of Product Identity.




Sure, but the intent was that that redistribution be done by other sources who are using previous OGC in a published work, so that not every company is reinventing the wheel with every product.

We're getting away from the original complaint here. I'm sure if we asked Andy Collins, he'd say he'd be happy to see UA's OGC in other publishers work. That's clearly in the spirit of the OGL. What is not in the spirit of the OGL is people transcribing whole works so that others can use that work for free. 



> Yet my big project of the day (after cleaning up the first draft release of the Aedon Bestiary) is to transcribe a set of alternate magical abilities from a book that has the previously mentioned "Rules are OGC, text is not" condition on it.




I would not defend a company that does that; making it difficult to tell what is OGC and what is not OGC is not only against the spirit of the OGL, it's against the letter. That's not the point though. Neither that company, nor one that clearly designates OGC, wants their hard work to be given away for free. Some people do- I gather you're going to post your Aedon bestiary for anyone's use, and that's great. However, if a company is in business to make money selling D20 stuff, I can understand them not wanting people to give away their hard work for free. And no need to rehash the fact that they entered into the OGL, blah blah blah. If they perceive that people copying and posting whole books hurts their business, then I'm sure many publishers would consider releasing less OGC, or crippling OGC as best they can. Some wouldn't, sure, but some would, and that's bad for us, the consumers. 



> No, it's not. The person going over the speed limit is breaking the law and trying to say "I only broke it a little" to get out of their ticket. By contrast, reproducing/redistributing OGC is not against the law because the OGL is written specifically to permit and promote that very course of action.




Apparently I didn't expand on this enough. Someone who says "but 5 mph over the speed limit is safe and thus within the spirit of the speed limit laws, thus it's unfair to get a ticket" is setting a double standard by saying "it doesn't matter if the spirit of the OGL was not to let me get stuff for free- the letter of the OGL says I can have it for free." That's my whole point. If someone follows the letter of the law in all instances, great. However, I'm not quite that Lawful- I tend to look at the intent (or spirit) of the law or agreement, and I try to live up to that. So I complain if I get a speeding ticket when I'm driving safely, but I would never consider transcribing a whole book and giving it away just because the OGL says I can. I'm only making a point about the double standard here- not trying to say it's OK to speed and not OK to transcribe UA. 



> Question: How many people that didn't buy the Manual of the Planes now have access to Planar Rules because WotC themselves uploaded the material?




I imagine lots. However, WotC made the choice to make their work available for free on the Internet, presumably after a suitable waiting period that saw their sales slow. Have you noticed that they don't add stuff to the SRD until it's been out on shelves for a while? UA is probably still selling fairly well. Doesn't WotC deserve a chance to make a little money on it before people give it away for free? I think the idea of a waiting period for free and open distribution of OGC is pretty reasonable, but UA just came out recently. 



> The term is "crippled"... "Broken" is for bad rules that don't work well with the rest of the rules.




You knew what I meant. Let's not get all pedantic.



> Bad for those that have that perception, you mean, as they have obviously established a business model that assumes some degree of control over their OGC that they don't really have. Which returns to the point I've made a dozen times: Make the non-OGC portions of your work viable beyond the reproduction of the OGC-portions, and the product will survive longer, better, and stronger.




What if they make the non-OGC portions of their work more viable by just making less of their work OGC? If publishers are loathe to release OGC because they think it will hurt their sales when it's copied and given away for free, then they'll probably just release less OGC. 

That's basically my point. Yes, it's perfectly OK for people to copy UA and post it on the Internet for all to download for free. However, does that hurt WotC? Will it inevitably hurt us, the consumers, as WotC and other publishers choose to release less OGC because of this kind of action? If so, should it be done? 



> By the same coin, however, they shouldn't complain about an agreement they made while fully aware of the implications ahead of time.




I don't see any publishers complaining about the OGL. Clearly, any that have benefitted from it by releasing D20 stuff would be crazy to complain. What I have seen is publishers asking fans and other publishers to give them a chance to make a bit of money before giving away their work for free. Publishers typically ask each for permission before using each others OGC, even though they certainly don't have to. And, in the few occasions where I've heard of a publisher asking another not to use their OGC, the other publisher has complied with the wishes of the first. It's common courtesy, nothing more, and nothing less.



> Even though I doudt 4E won't be Open, here's my prediction in regards to what will happen if such is the case: D&D will stop being the "leader" brand name and fall to the wayside as the d20 System and Open Gaming remain friendly to OGL Publishers and fansites.




You have to remember that we here at EN World are a very small minority. Most D&D players don't give a rip about OGC/OGL. If WotC puts out 4E after a reasonable amount of time and it looks like an improvement, they'll buy it. And because they'll buy it, even if it's not open, I would expect many current D20 publishers to end up entering into licensing agreements with WotC to produce stuff for 4E, and the world would go on, with the OGL gradually fading into obscurity.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 20, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> No, you're supposed to stop eating because otherwise, you'll turn into a big, fat slob.
> 
> See, it's the same with OGC -- if you use too much open game content you'll turn into a big, fat open game slob. And then none of the cool kids will want to play with you and you'll never get a date and you'll live your life in loneliness and THEN you'll be sorry.
> 
> You'll see.



Ugh...  You folks are giving me flashbacks of an old Louie Anderson skit...

"You be here four hours!  You go now!"


----------



## Maggan (Apr 20, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> What constitutes "without trying to influence the outcome"? Not making the OGC freely available? Not dissuading others from making it freely available? Not helping others to make it freely available?




In this case I was thinking about mr Collins' post, where he expressed his negative feelings towards the idea of a UA SRD, which then led to posters feeling bad and pontentially made them stop compiling an UA SRD.

So instead of the trial running its course, mr Collins have influenced the trial.

Cheers!

Maggan


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 20, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> Sure, but the intent was that that redistribution be done by other sources who are using previous OGC in a published work, so that not every company is reinventing the wheel with every product.



Yet aren't we seeing that already?  How many forms of "magical location" rules have you seen?  How about firearms?  How many Mass Combat Systems are currently available?

It's safe to say that it's failed that purpose.



> We're getting away from the original complaint here. I'm sure if we asked Andy Collins, he'd say he'd be happy to see UA's OGC in other publishers work. That's clearly in the spirit of the OGL. What is not in the spirit of the OGL is people transcribing whole works so that others can use that work for free.



Mind pointing out where, other than AC's irrelevant opinion, this is stated?



> I would not defend a company that does that; making it difficult to tell what is OGC and what is not OGC is not only against the spirit of the OGL, it's against the letter. That's not the point though. Neither that company, nor one that clearly designates OGC, wants their hard work to be given away for free. Some people do- I gather you're going to post your Aedon bestiary for anyone's use, and that's great. However, if a company is in business to make money selling D20 stuff, I can understand them not wanting people to give away their hard work for free. And no need to rehash the fact that they entered into the OGL, blah blah blah. If they perceive that people copying and posting whole books hurts their business, then I'm sure many publishers would consider releasing less OGC, or crippling OGC as best they can. Some wouldn't, sure, but some would, and that's bad for us, the consumers.



Actually, my work is protected just as much as everyone else's: Fictional/artistic elements and group identification remain outside of the OGC unless I declare it otherwise.  If a product is put out that has it's _only_ value in the OGC it contains, that is the choice of the publisher to do that.  But their choice should not have any influence on what occurs to the material once declared OGC.



> Apparently I didn't expand on this enough. Someone who says "but 5 mph over the speed limit is safe and thus within the spirit of the speed limit laws, thus it's unfair to get a ticket" is setting a double standard by saying "it doesn't matter if the spirit of the OGL was not to let me get stuff for free- the letter of the OGL says I can have it for free."



Read Section 1b of the license again: "Public Display" is included within the definition of distribution.  Posting something on a website is a "public display".

If anything's against the "spirit" of the OGL, it's trying to pretend certain terms were included on accident and thus using them is exploitive.

In short: Redistributing OGC in the form of a public display (which is the topic here, right?) is not against the law and, I would argue, is part of the "spirit" of the OGL.  Driving 5 mph over the speed limit, no matter how safe you _think_ it may be, is still breaking the law.  Stop trying to paint these two things with the same brush.



> That's my whole point. If someone follows the letter of the law in all instances, great. However, I'm not quite that Lawful- I tend to look at the intent (or spirit) of the law or agreement, and I try to live up to that. So I complain if I get a speeding ticket when I'm driving safely, but I would never consider transcribing a whole book and giving it away just because the OGL says I can. I'm only making a point about the double standard here- not trying to say it's OK to speed and not OK to transcribe UA.



No, you are comparing an illegal act (speeding) to a legal act (re-distribution of Open Game Content) and using a subjective opinion rather than fact to smooth over the fact that the comparison is poorly thought out.



> I imagine lots. However, WotC made the choice to make their work available for free on the Internet, presumably after a suitable waiting period that saw their sales slow. Have you noticed that they don't add stuff to the SRD until it's been out on shelves for a while? UA is probably still selling fairly well. Doesn't WotC deserve a chance to make a little money on it before people give it away for free? I think the idea of a waiting period for free and open distribution of OGC is pretty reasonable, but UA just came out recently.



Don't you think WotC thereby has an obligation to state their intended purpose so people can make an informed choice rather than leaving us in a vacuum?  The fact that UA has an OGL in it makes UA different from any of their other books.  So are they releasing a UA SRD or not?  We don't know.  Therefore, any decisions _we_ make are in absence of their input.

I would gladly hear such input from Wizards, but that input needs to be from someone speaking as a representative authorized to speak out on the issue.



> You knew what I meant. Let's not get all pedantic.



Hey, for someone that likes to back morality theories with subjective ideals, you shouldn't complain if your inability to use correct terminology is pointed out.



> What if they make the non-OGC portions of their work more viable by just making less of their work OGC? If publishers are loathe to release OGC because they think it will hurt their sales when it's copied and given away for free, then they'll probably just release less OGC.



Which may or may not be a viable means for them to do so.



> That's basically my point. Yes, it's perfectly OK for people to copy UA and post it on the Internet for all to download for free. However, does that hurt WotC? Will it inevitably hurt us, the consumers, as WotC and other publishers choose to release less OGC because of this kind of action? If so, should it be done?



If the material is at all derivitive (and 95% of the rules I've seen released under the OGL are just that), it _cannot_ be released as non-OGC.  Therefore, to retain their rules as Closed Content, they will have to be creating rules components that in no way interact, influence, or are influenced by anything already OGC.



> I don't see any publishers complaining about the OGL. Clearly, any that have benefitted from it by releasing D20 stuff would be crazy to complain. What I have seen is publishers asking fans and other publishers to give them a chance to make a bit of money before giving away their work for free. Publishers typically ask each for permission before using each others OGC, even though they certainly don't have to. And, in the few occasions where I've heard of a publisher asking another not to use their OGC, the other publisher has complied with the wishes of the first. It's common courtesy, nothing more, and nothing less.



It's unneccessary and muddies the water.  For instance, if I'm reproducing material from _Necropolis_ and Necromancer contacts me and asks that I stop, am I going to suddenly get some big, nasty reputation because I don't feel obligated to do so?  If Necromancer complains about me, will I get the mud flung at me, or will Necromancer get mud flung at them for trying to get me to stop doing what I'm legally entitled to do?

(Not that I expect this kind of treatment from Necromancer; it was just the first book I saw on my shelf when I was digging for an example.)

To which, what you call "courtesy" is, in my opinion, little more than using subjective ethics to add conditions to OGC re-use which is forbidden per Section 2 of the OGL.



> You have to remember that we here at EN World are a very small minority. Most D&D players don't give a rip about OGC/OGL. If WotC puts out 4E after a reasonable amount of time and it looks like an improvement, they'll buy it. And because they'll buy it, even if it's not open, I would expect many current D20 publishers to end up entering into licensing agreements with WotC to produce stuff for 4E, and the world would go on, with the OGL gradually fading into obscurity.



Possibly.  Possibly not.  Without the conditions of the new licensing being known, we could only speculate.  However, I doubt severely that d20 will fade into obscurity.  4E would have to have _vastly superior_ mechanics to even be a threat to Open Gaming.

Of course, one might ask: If ENWorld is a minority, than why would a _small_ group within that minority compiling their personal transcriptions from UA into a single document that big of a deal?  Either we're relevant or we're not; and if we're not, why are you wasting your time debating this topic?


----------



## Samothdm (Apr 20, 2004)

Well, there are definitely a wide variety of opinions here.  I do wish that some more publishers would ring in with their opinions on using OGC.  

From what I see, there are a bunch of ways that people can use Open Game Content.  

1) Non-Publisher.  Put OGC on your website or in a handout for your players so they have access to the rules you're going to use.  I do this myself.  It's perfectly legal under the rules of the OGL.  I would say, however, if I were going to be using 50% or more of a single book, I would suggest that my players all try to come up with the money to buy the book themselves.  For example, if I were running an _Arcana Unearthed _ Campaign (Monte's book, just to clear up confusion in the title vs. _Unearthed Arcana_, the WotC book), that book contains all new different classes, races, spells, etc.  Going through and posting all of the OGC of that entire book online _*is*_ legal, but seems pointless.  If you're playing AU, make your players buy the book.  

2) Publisher.  Referencing OGC from one product in your own product.  _Dynasties and Demagogues _ by Atlas/Penumbra is an example.  The book makes use of "Social Feats" from _Fading Suns d20 _ in the book (as well as some other stuff from other companies).  But, the book as a whole is mostly new material.  Again, legal according to the OGL.  

3) Publisher.  Make a "complilation" book along a theme, ala _Ultimate Prestige Classes_, _Ultimate Spells_, etc.  In this case, a publisher is taking OGC from a bunch of different sources along one single theme to give consumers access to a "best of..." sort of thing.  Totally legal according to the OGL.

4) Publisher or Non-Publisher.  Taking a single book and posting/publishing/redistributing all of the OGC from that book.  Basically, turning one single book that is currently available for sale into a freely available version.  An example here is the _UA _ thing we're all talking about.  Yes, it's totally legal according to the OGL.

I'm sorry, but I just can't understand how people don't see a difference between those four points.  

1) Making *some* material available to players in a campaign in a limited way on a website or as handouts.  Yes, it would be preferable to buy the book but if you're only using certain bits in your campaign (a few classes or races or whatever) then I don't see a problem with posting _*just those bits you're actually using * _ on your site.  

2) In the _Dynasties & Demagogues _ example, the intent of the author is not to give away _Fading Suns d20's _ Social Feats for free.  The intent is to create a book that uses those feats in a new and different way, in a different setting.  It exposes people to a set of rules that they may not have seen before if they weren't interested in the _Fading Suns _ book from a setting standpoint.  

3) Compilation books, again, focus on a single theme.  I don't believe that Green Ronin's intent is to give away all of the content in _Relics & Rituals _ (or whatever they use as source material for the Complete Grimoire's - I don't have my copy handy here) for free.  What they're doing is collecting spells from a bunch of different sources so people can just use the spells without the rest of the book.  In this case, if you want the PrCs or Magic Items from _Relics & Rituals_, you're going to have to buy the book.  

4) In the last case, transcribing the entire book does not really seem to serve, at least to me, any purpose other than just that - providing the entire contents of the book for free in one easy-to-access place so people don't have to buy the book.  At that point, there's no incentive for people to buy the book.  

The _Pocket Player's Handbook _ is not a good example, because WotC already made all of that material readily available in an SRD format.  They have not done so with UA.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 20, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> If anything's against the "spirit" of the OGL, it's trying to pretend certain terms were included on accident and thus using them is exploitive.




It's not pretending--it's called "having a conscience".  

It's called considering the effect my actions have on others, regardless of whether it is in the bounds of ethical or legal behavior.  I think it is immoral to be an exploitive jerk, and all the debate anybody tells me won't change that thought.

I think there are good uses and bad uses of OGL out there.  Each one I judge based on how exploitive it is.  To me, If it feels like you are doing something wrong, it probably is wrong.  That's how everybody should behave.



> To which, what you call "courtesy" is, in my opinion, little more than using subjective ethics to add conditions to OGC re-use which is forbidden per Section 2 of the OGL.




And what is *wrong* with being more careful, going above and beyond the call of duty or the letter of the law in everything one does in his or her life, or holding one's self up to a more noble ideal.  What is *wrong* with that?




> Of course, one might ask: If ENWorld is a minority, than why would a _small_ group within that minority compiling their personal transcriptions from UA into a single document that big of a deal?  Either we're relevant or we're not; and if we're not, why are you wasting your time debating this topic?




We are debating for this purpose.

Some of us feel that the creation of an SRD for Unearthed Arcana for free on the Internet violates a trust.  We discourage people from doing that, and debate why.  And we realize our actions have consequences, and the activities of a few may discourage the good elements of OGL.

And before anybody thinks I am attacking anybody, I am attacking the attitude, not an individual.  I have not attacked others, but I see people ready to jump on both myself and Andy Collins for daring to speak out about this, questioning our motives.  I can't help it if some of the things we say make people feel guilty about their actions.


----------



## nikolai (Apr 20, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Some of us feel that the creation of an SRD for Unearthed Arcana for free on the Internet violates a trust.  We discourage people from doing that, and debate why.  And we realize our actions have consequences, and the activities of a few may discourage the good elements of OGL.




I can't see how the creation of a Unearthed Arcana SRD violates a trust. As far as I am aware Wizards has knowingly given everyone explicit permission to do just this. Andy Collins has posted against it - but he wasn't speaking for Wizards - his opinions are nothing more than that, and are in some respects factually wrong.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 20, 2004)

Samothdm said:
			
		

> 4) In the last case, transcribing the entire book does not really seem to serve, at least to me, any purpose other than just that - providing the entire contents of the book for free in one easy-to-access place so people don't have to buy the book.  At that point, there's no incentive for people to buy the book.



Let me start by pointing out that the incentive to buy the book is primaily to have an actual book in hand to read through. Trust me, even a technophiliac like me still appreciates an actual book in hand. Secondarily is to have some nice illustrations and a nice cover. Third your sponsering creative talent.

An example is Green Ronin's Hammer and Helm, a product from 2002, almost 2 years old. If GR is still making lots of dough off this book then i really need to re-evaluate the D20 industry, but i don't really think that they still sell a lot of these. It features 45 high quality b&w illustrations and a handsome color cover, not to mention a spiffy layout. It's 112 pages long and when you buy it at www.taloncomics.com it only costs $16.95, more than worth it if it where only to get a physical product (and save on printing costs).

Now for the value of transcribing the text verbatim. Making it less dificult for other people to use it in their works and not promoting the reinvention of the wheel. A document that only lists the actual OGC should be a big help to most people that want to use OGC. The OGC copy of a single book might not have much value, but a library of OGC books has the value of being searchable and can be used to find the OGC rules that best fit your style. One book is a start for more to come.

I'm currently working on some OGC verbatim books that contain material that i think adds value to the basic Fantasy D20 game. For now that's all the OGC vrom GR's Book of the Righteous, with some additional material form Legions of Hell, Armies of the Abyss, Unholy Warrior's Handbook, Avatar's Handbook, and the Book of Fiends. Avatar's Handbook will follow first for verbatim OGC, then Legion's of Hell, Armies of the Abyss, and Unholy Warrior's Handbook, and finally after Book of Fiends has been out for six months i'll add the OGC verbatim. With the OGC material between those books i can fill a hole in the current SRD: a good pantheon of gods and a decent plane structure. That's OGC from six awesome books to plug a 'hole'. If people want more of this goodness, like awesome images, 'fluff' text for the monsters, and the rest of the BotR 'bible' they'll have to buy the books. I'll be asking GR if they're interested in providing an advertisemnet page to be included in these works. And i've already seen a couple of gaps in the already available works, like the Avatar and Holy Warrior for v.3.5, write ups for Demogorgon, Orcus, etc., developing Byldgewater and Cacoethes further, delving deeper into the angelic choirs and the fallen angels, some actual churches/locations where people worship the gods of the tree, etc. After this i've got my eyes set on Fantasy Flight's Path of Books. UA just is a whole bunch of goodness that just has no equal among the D20 publishers.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 20, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> It's not pretending--it's called "having a conscience".



No, it's "pretending".  "Public display" means just that.  Do you think that was left in the OGL on accident?



> It's called considering the effect my actions have on others, regardless of whether it is in the bounds of ethical or legal behavior. I think it is immoral to be an exploitive jerk, and all the debate anybody tells me won't change that thought.



Actually, you never answered my question about the conditions of your "super module".  Mind going back and finding it?  Or would you just admit that your "moral stance" is simply that: a stance based on your worldview, which may or may not be correct and most definately won't be universal.



> I think there are good uses and bad uses of OGL out there. Each one I judge based on how exploitive it is. To me, If it feels like you are doing something wrong, it probably is wrong. That's how everybody should behave.



And, naturally, if I don't feel it's wrong, I'm an "exploitive jerk" without a conscience?



> And what is *wrong* with being more careful, going above and beyond the call of duty or the letter of the law in everything one does in his or her life, or holding one's self up to a more noble ideal. What is *wrong* with that?



Because of this line in Section 2 of the OGL:



> 2. ...No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself.  No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.



This part of the license _protects_ the OGC re-user from being told "no".  Thus, any implied "noble ideal" to contact the original contributor of the material is nothing more than semantics; it's asking the OGC re-user to accept the "term or condition" that the originating source approves when such approval is entirely unneccessary.

I mean, honestly, if I ask, then what stops the original source from saying "no" for what ever reason.  Maybe they don't want their material posted?  Maybe they don't like the theme of my setting?  Maybe they don't like me from my posts?  And if I'm told "no", am I legally obligated to accept "no" for an answer or can I reproduce the material anyway?  And if I can ignore the "no", why the hell am I asking in the first place?  After all, by the terms of the license, the "Contributor" has no right whatsoever to say "no" because they have already "contributed" their work.



> We are debating for this purpose.
> 
> Some of us feel that the creation of an SRD for Unearthed Arcana for free on the Internet violates a trust. We discourage people from doing that, and debate why. And we realize our actions have consequences, and the activities of a few may discourage the good elements of OGL.
> 
> And before anybody thinks I am attacking anybody, I am attacking the attitude, not an individual. I have not attacked others, but I see people ready to jump on both myself and Andy Collins for daring to speak out about this, questioning our motives. I can't help it if some of the things we say make people feel guilty about their actions.



We question terms like "ethical", "moral", and "noble ideal".  You are placing _your value judgements_ onto other people.  So while you claim to not be attacking them (or me), you really are.  You claim you are correct by virtue of your morality, and it is only your subjective morality that gives your stance any validity.

Which is to say, it has none.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 20, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I think there are good uses and bad uses of OGL out there.  Each one I judge based on how exploitive it is. To me, If it feels like you are doing something wrong, it probably is wrong. That's how everybody should behave.



Shouldn't people who smoke feel like they are doing something wrong? Smoking is hazourdous for your health and those who don't have a choice about the air they're breathing beside you, still people smoke.

Shouldn't people who drink more than they can handle (that means tipsy and drunk) feel like they are doing something wrong? Less controle over one's emotions and motor control, posibly resulting in violence, accident, or unsuppresed oppionions.

Should't people who do drugs feel like they are doing something wrong? Less controle over one's emotions and motor control, posibly resulting in violence, accident, or unsuppresed oppionions. Not to mention the addictive effects that can result in high crimes.

I don't do any, or have ever done, any of the thing i just mentioned above, but how many people can actually say the same? Do i start calling these people immorale biggots just because they don't have the same values and/or restraint as myself? I sure would like it a lot if people stopped doing the things i just mentioned, but i don't really expect them to, mostly because these things are legal (some soft drugs are around here). I also remind myself that not everyone is like me, and i'm bloody happy people aren't like me ;-)


----------



## Setanta (Apr 20, 2004)

> Yet aren't we seeing that already? How many forms of "magical location" rules have you seen? How about firearms? How many Mass Combat Systems are currently available?



Sure, we keep seeing publishers reinvent the wheel, but that's not relevant to the discussion at hand. It doesn't change the fact that that is what the OGL was originally intended to do. 



> Mind pointing out where, other than AC's irrelevant opinion, this is stated?



How is Andy Collins' opinion irrelevant? If I was a publisher, I'd stay quiet on this too, because of the way Andy has been villified in this thread for having the audacity to actually want his company to make money on his work. It's strange how that keeps him employed. 



> Actually, my work is protected just as much as everyone else's: Fictional/artistic elements and group identification remain outside of the OGC unless I declare it otherwise. If a product is put out that has it's only value in the OGC it contains, that is the choice of the publisher to do that. But their choice should not have any influence on what occurs to the material once declared OGC.



As for the first part, I understand the OGL. As for the second, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. That's been discussed quite a bit on this thread. Yes, once something is OGC, people have a right to reproduce it. Nobody is contesting that. The question is not whether they *have* a right, but whether it *is* right. It's a courtesy thing, not a legal thing. 



> Read Section 1b of the license again: "Public Display" is included within the definition of distribution. Posting something on a website is a "public display".



You really can step away from the OGL lecturn. 



> If anything's against the "spirit" of the OGL, it's trying to pretend certain terms were included on accident and thus using them is exploitive.



Who's pretending that? 



> In short: Redistributing OGC in the form of a public display (which is the topic here, right?) is not against the law and, I would argue, is part of the "spirit" of the OGL. Driving 5 mph over the speed limit, no matter how safe you think it may be, is still breaking the law. Stop trying to paint these two things with the same brush.



Nobody is suggesting redistributing OGL on a website is against the law. The crux of the discussion here seems to be whether giving away RPG stuff for free or not is in the spirit of the OGL. You think it is, I don't. It's too bad we can't get publishers to weigh in. As I mentioned above, it seems someone making a point like Andy's just gets the publisher in question villified, so why would they say anything? I have noticed the distinct lack of publishers stepping into this thread and saying they would be happy about people disseminating their work for free immediately after it's published. As I recall, we've got two comments from publishers. Andy's is one, and the other said he appreciates groups like the d20exchange observing a waiting period before reproducing his work on a website for free distrution. 

As for the speeding analogy, again, nobody is saying that copying UA to a website is against the law. The analogy was originally used to illustrate the difference between believing in the spirit of the law/agreement versus believing in the letter of the law/agreement. The analogy is not to say that posting UA on a website is the same thing as going 5 mph over the speed limit. Someone who stays at a particular speed because it's the speed limit is following the letter, while someone who drives a safe speed without regard for the posted limit is following the spirit of the law. Someone who posts UA on a website is following the letter of the OGL, but in my opinion (and I'm well aware your opinion is different), they are not following the spirit of the OGL. 

Let's try another, since the first one worked so well (or not!). Let's say you put closed content Aedon stuff on your website (I haven't looked- maybe you already have). Let's say I like it, and contact you to use some of it. You say sure, and we arrive at an agreement whereby I can use something (say, a culture) from Aedon in my future publications. Now, the letter of that agreement says I can use that culture in a series of novels I write, but we really arrived at the agreement within the context of gaming publications. I know that, so I would ask you whether it was OK to use the culture before writing a novel including it, even though the letter of the agreement expressly allows me to do so. I would do that our of courtesy. Do you see my point? 



> No, you are comparing an illegal act (speeding) to a legal act (re-distribution of Open Game Content) and using a subjective opinion rather than fact to smooth over the fact that the comparison is poorly thought out.



It's not a poor analogy. It's a way of looking at things. I believe in following the spirit of a law or agreement, even if that's different from the letter. In this case, it means I would not post UA to a website, allow that's clearly legal. Obviously I'm not the only one who sees this as a fine analogy, since I wasn't the original person to post it. If you don't see it as a fine analogy, then let's stop talking about it, OK?



> Don't you think WotC thereby has an obligation to state their intended purpose so people can make an informed choice rather than leaving us in a vacuum?



In the most obvious sense, their intended purpose is clear- there is a price tag on the book, and they've been selling it to distributors, presumably expecting the distributors to sell it to retailers, etc. As for making it OGL, I'm sure they'd like to see publishers re-use some of the rules and ideas in that book, and expand upon them to see which ones are popular. The popular ones will probably be considered for inclusion in 4E someday. I don't think they have any obligation to state that, though. 



> Hey, for someone that likes to back morality theories with subjective ideals, you shouldn't complain if your inability to use correct terminology is pointed out.



I don't have subjective ideals at all, and frankly I find it insulting that you would suggest that. Maybe you mean something different than what I think of when I read "subjective values." If I said someone had subjective values, I would be saying that I think they apply their values depending on the situation in such a way that their values never really stop them from doing what they want to do. If you mean something different, please explain yourself. 

Also, it wasn't inability to use correct terminology. Have you never in your life typed a word that wasn't exactly the right word? You understood what I meant; we communicated fine on that point. There was no reason to point out that I used the wrong word. 



> If the material is at all derivitive (and 95% of the rules I've seen released under the OGL are just that), it cannot be released as non-OGC. Therefore, to retain their rules as Closed Content, they will have to be creating rules components that in no way interact, influence, or are influenced by anything already OGC.



How is WotC able to release anything as closed content then? As I'm sure you know, WotC isn't actually publishing under the OGL. Other publishers need to make rules material OGC, sure, but your comment above was in response to my belief that widespread free distribution of WotC's OGC in the form of UA could lead to them making 4E closed content, which goes back to the original point of this whole discussion- transcribing and posting UA is bad for us, the gamers. 



> It's unneccessary and muddies the water. For instance, if I'm reproducing material from Necropolis and Necromancer contacts me and asks that I stop, am I going to suddenly get some big, nasty reputation because I don't feel obligated to do so? If Necromancer complains about me, will I get the mud flung at me, or will Necromancer get mud flung at them for trying to get me to stop doing what I'm legally entitled to do?



Actually, from what I've seen, the companies that don't follow these unwritten rules are the ones that take a reputation hit. There's really no reason not to be courteous here. I haven't heard of too many cases of one publisher stating that they'd prefer another publisher not re-use their OGC, so why not ask? 



> Possibly. Possibly not. Without the conditions of the new licensing being known, we could only speculate. However, I doubt severely that d20 will fade into obscurity. 4E would have to have vastly superior mechanics to even be a threat to Open Gaming.



We are just speculating without knowing the license or the new edition's rules, of course, but wouldn't you agree that it would be bad for us gamers if WotC makes 4E closed? Based on what we've seen of their management, and knowing that there are many opponents of open gaming at WotC, can't you see it as possible that giving away their work for free in the form of UA might lead to 4E being closed? 



> Of course, one might ask: If ENWorld is a minority, than why would a small group within that minority compiling their personal transcriptions from UA into a single document that big of a deal? Either we're relevant or we're not; and if we're not, why are you wasting your time debating this topic?



I don't believe that people transcribing UA and posting it on the web will hurt WotC's sales of said book enough to matter. That isn't important though. Will WotC's management *think* it hurts their sales? Will this be ammunition for the anti-OGL people at WotC to push their agenda with regards to future WotC publications and/or 4E?


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 20, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> To me, If it feels like you are doing something wrong, it probably is wrong. That's how everybody should behave.



That IS how everybody behaves. The problem, throughout history, has always been that everybody doesn't agree on what feels like doing something wrong.

This is why we have laws. So that Fred can't force George to adhere to Fred's standards of what is right or wrong -- standards that George has no way of knowing about, has no way of being alerting to changes in, and has no way to predict in what manner will change in the future. A legal agreement allows both parties to understand what is expected of them, what is denied them, and how they can go about changing any conditions they later decide they don't like.

Like, say, using the OGL. If you enter into an agreement, why would you expect or demand other people NOT to adhere to the terms of that agreement?

If a publisher says, "Please don't publish this online for a few months", people are free to agree or ignore and you may think they are evil or good, but that is an entirely separate issue from the act of releasing something under the OGL. By default, by explicit statement, by reasoned intent, the OGL is meant to make it possible for anyone to distribute content released under its purview in any manner  they choose.

If a publisher releases a product using the OGL and doesn't say anything to the contrary, then the only safe assumption is that they expect and accept and possibly even hope that their content will be redistributed in any fashion the license allows.

Now if they DO say, "Please don't," that may be a different story. But in the absence of such a statement, the only reasonable assumption is that they are using the OGL in full knowledge and acceptance of its terms and conditions. This is what frees us from having to agree on what is right or wrong -- the law tells us, so individual feelings don't enter into it.


----------



## Nellisir (Apr 20, 2004)

(On WotC "setting the bar", and yes, I'm wandering off topic...)


			
				woodelf said:
			
		

> Well, part of it could be your perspective. From my perspective, i'm continually appalled by the fact that WotC *doesn't* set the bar for creativity, ingenuity, editing, or artwork in the D20 System market. IMHO, of course. They are, IMHO, firmly leading the middle of the pack. Only place they are consistently leading is where raw economies of scale help them: production values. And while no one has done a book like Unearthed Arcana, perhaps as little as 1/3rd of it is really innovative--the rest has appeared (more or less) in other D20 System products already, or is old hat to RPGs in general and only new to D20 System.




Well, I don't buy everything anymore, so my perspective is biased in that area.  What I don't see, however, are companies as consistently and *broadly* bending the "rules" of d20 as WotC.

What's the definative book on dragons?  Draconomicon.  Monsters?  Savage Species.  
Good? Exalted Deeds (though Good from AEG is pretty, well, good...).  
Evil?  Vile Darkness.  
Alternate rules for your fantasy d20 game?  Unearthed Arcana.  
Asian-themed role-playing?  Oriental Adventures.

It actually annoys me.  Testament is cool, but not that useful in a standard game.  Ditto Skull & Bones.  Maybe not all, but most publishers seem to be locked into some kind of tight-focus vision, where instead of a toolkit book on Renaissance-era roleplaying, with material on fitting in gnomes and orcs and sorcerers, they publish the Qualharian Renaissance Booke, set in 1603 AQ, with dicherion and mrul races, and no guns.  'Cause Qualharia doesn't have guns.  They have lightning-throwers.

ARGH!

Before I get lynched, I like campaign books.  And I'm sure dicherions are really cool.  But for frells sake, I'd like to see a few more publishers explore a few more campaign options via "toolkit" books, not campaign books.

Cheers
Nell.
Wandering off into total incoherency.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> Nobody is suggesting redistributing OGL on a website is against the law. The crux of the discussion here seems to be whether giving away RPG stuff for free or not is in the spirit of the OGL.



Explain to me how redistributing OGC (I assume that's what you meant) on a website is different from giving away RPG stuff for free.


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> It's too bad we can't get publishers to weigh in. As I mentioned above, it seems someone making a point like Andy's just gets the publisher in question villified, so why would they say anything?



Who has "villified" any publisher on this thread? I certainly called into question Andy's opinion that redistributing OGC is "petty", but by no means did I intend to attack Andy himself. If I came across in that fashion, I apologize.

There's been plenty of people who disagree with Andy's position, but I don't see how that is "villifying" him. All the disagreements I've read have been very clear legal arguments, devoid of name-calling or emotionally-loaded terminology. nikolai's initial posts of disagreement seemed a little heated, but he/she specifically posted later saying that no slur against Andy was at all intended. So I would be surprised if he came into this discussion and said he felt villified.

Misunderstood, on his own against the forces of Open Gaming run amok, maybe, but villified? Well, maybe.


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> I believe in following the spirit of a law or agreement, even if that's different from the letter.



So you think it's okay to break the law if in your opinion, the law doesn't mean what it says. That's interesting. Try that in court in some time, let me know how you do.


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> Wouldn't you agree that it would be bad for us gamers if WotC makes 4E closed?



Describe one bad consequence of this. I can't see how it would be bad at all. Bad for WotC, maybe, but who else? Maybe people who want 4e to enjoy the same broad user base and support that 3e enjoys, I guess.

I mean, game systems aren't like software. They don't go out of date, they don't become obsolete. 3e will always be as good and as useful as it is right now. What hurts games over time is the drop in support materials. The OGL helps to ensure that the support network for games released under it cannot be degraded by any company ceasing to use it. If WotC releases 4e without using the OGL, it will become a competing system to 3e, and I would think they'd have to spend a very large amount of money to compete successfully with a system that is so easy to support. I find it difficult to imagine that a small industry like RPG paper-and-pen publishing could justify such a risky and expensive campaign.

I still haven't seen any of the supporters of the "non-sleazy" interpretation come up with a "non-sleazy" way to handle Bendris Noulg's super-module problem. Anyone?

Those still opposing the idea of using the OGL as it is written seem to have a few arguments:

If somebody asks you to do something (like, "Don't redistribute this book"), it's nice if you can do it.
-- I agree. And if someone asks, I will make an effort. WotC has not asked anyone not to redistribute UA. Until they do, the idea that anyone ought to refrain from redistributing it is pure speculation. By using the OGL to release it, they have explicitly told people that it's okay for them to redistribute it. That's what the OGL says, so presumably that's what WotC is saying.

If OGC gets redistributed, book sales in the industry will fall
-- I haven't seen any data to support this, but Joe B did chime in and say that he felt mad redistribution of his books would hurt his sales.

If sales in the industry fall due to OGC redistribution, D&D 4e will be closed
-- Nobody has demonstrated a bad consequence to this speculation, so I don't consider it an issue.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 21, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> Sure, we keep seeing publishers reinvent the wheel, but that's not relevant to the discussion at hand. It doesn't change the fact that that is what the OGL was originally intended to do.



No, it's _one_ of the things the OGL was originally intended to do.



> How is Andy Collins' opinion irrelevant? If I was a publisher, I'd stay quiet on this too, because of the way Andy has been villified in this thread for having the audacity to actually want his company to make money on his work. It's strange how that keeps him employed.



You may want to go back the the beginning of this thread and take some notes; for instance, dispite my personal disliking of AC as a game designer, I've never villified him in this thread.  At most, I indicated that his _opinion_ is not an official statement by way of WotC.

And, yes, I do feel his opinion is irrelevant.  That his "voice" holds weight to anyone comes from the misconception that Open Gaming is a publsiher-only playground, which is patently false.  Sure, anyone is free to try to make a buck or two through the OGL, but in the end, the OGL does not owe them a living wage.  Only the quality of their material, from design to editing, layout and graphics, will deliver that.

WotC has _proven_ this with the SRD and the Core Rulebooks.



> As for the first part, I understand the OGL.



That's a good thing...



> As for the second, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. That's been discussed quite a bit on this thread. Yes, once something is OGC, people have a right to reproduce it. Nobody is contesting that. The question is not whether they *have* a right, but whether it *is* right. It's a courtesy thing, not a legal thing.



And I'm saying that the concept of courtesy is widely varied.  Is it *right* to release something as OGC and then complain when it actually gets treated like OGC?



> You really can step away from the OGL lecturn.



No, you must deal with the fact that it is the OGL, not myself or anyone else, that is against your stance.  1b is a clear example of it.  (Which, of course, would be why you and JohnRTroy never seem to want to discuss matters of the OGL itself but rather voice forth some unwritten morality play that has nothing to do with the facts of the matter.)



> Who's pretending that?



Oh, then you accept the _fact_ that "Public Display" includes web pages?



> Nobody is suggesting redistributing OGL on a website is against the law. The crux of the discussion here seems to be whether giving away RPG stuff for free or not is in the spirit of the OGL.



Giving away RPG stuff for free?  Certainly not.  The OGL does not allow that.

It _does_, however, permit the open and free exchange of Open Gaming Content.



> It's too bad we can't get publishers to weigh in. As I mentioned above, it seems someone making a point like Andy's just gets the publisher in question villified, so why would they say anything?



Note the tone of Andy's post.  Then click the link to the GR boards and read the tone of Chris Pramas' post.  Then give yourself 5 minutes to consider not why Andy's been villified (by individuals other than myself) but why Chris hasn't been?



> I have noticed the distinct lack of publishers stepping into this thread and saying they would be happy about people disseminating their work for free immediately after it's published. As I recall, we've got two comments from publishers. Andy's is one, and the other said he appreciates groups like the d20exchange observing a waiting period before reproducing his work on a website for free distrution.



Which is a good thing.  However, if I'm transcribing Insanity, Taint, Legendary Weapons, and Honor (all of which, btw, I already had via other sources so I didn't _need_ to buy UA for them, yet I bought it anyway) and someone says, "I'd like to see an Unearthed Arcana SRD, who's in?", I'm going to volunteer the components I'm already determined to transcribe.

Plain and simple as that.



> As for the speeding analogy, again, nobody is saying that copying UA to a website is against the law. The analogy was originally used to illustrate the difference between believing in the spirit of the law/agreement versus believing in the letter of the law/agreement. The analogy is not to say that posting UA on a website is the same thing as going 5 mph over the speed limit. Someone who stays at a particular speed because it's the speed limit is following the letter, while someone who drives a safe speed without regard for the posted limit is following the spirit of the law. Someone who posts UA on a website is following the letter of the OGL, but in my opinion (and I'm well aware your opinion is different), they are not following the spirit of the OGL.



And you anology is flawed because the person driving 5 mph over the speed limit _is_ breaking the law; spirit of not, the person's getting a ticket.  Give the Judge the "spirit of the law" speech, if you want, but I don't think it will get you anywhere.

Well, other than perhaps Contempt charges...



> Let's try another, since the first one worked so well (or not!). Let's say you put closed content Aedon stuff on your website (I haven't looked- maybe you already have). Let's say I like it, and contact you to use some of it. You say sure, and we arrive at an agreement whereby I can use something (say, a culture) from Aedon in my future publications. Now, the letter of that agreement says I can use that culture in a series of novels I write, but we really arrived at the agreement within the context of gaming publications. I know that, so I would ask you whether it was OK to use the culture before writing a novel including it, even though the letter of the agreement expressly allows me to do so. I would do that our of courtesy. Do you see my point?



No, because I would have been a fool to agree to a contract that was not air-tight or I didn't agree to (which, consequently, _would_ limit you to RPG material).  And like I pointed out far earlier in this thread: Every publisher _knows_ that material they release as OGC can easily end up on a website the very next day.  They accept that possibility by accepting the license.



> It's not a poor analogy. It's a way of looking at things. I believe in following the spirit of a law or agreement, even if that's different from the letter. In this case, it means I would not post UA to a website, allow that's clearly legal. Obviously I'm not the only one who sees this as a fine analogy, since I wasn't the original person to post it. If you don't see it as a fine analogy, then let's stop talking about it, OK?



Sure, as long as it's understood that distributing OGC != breaking the law.



> In the most obvious sense, their intended purpose is clear- there is a price tag on the book, and they've been selling it to distributors, presumably expecting the distributors to sell it to retailers, etc. As for making it OGL, I'm sure they'd like to see publishers re-use some of the rules and ideas in that book, and expand upon them to see which ones are popular. The popular ones will probably be considered for inclusion in 4E someday. I don't think they have any obligation to state that, though.



Agreed, but rather besides the point.  However, it is interesting to note that the PH, DMG, MM, MotP, and ELH all have price tags, too.



> I don't have subjective ideals at all, and frankly I find it insulting that you would suggest that. Maybe you mean something different than what I think of when I read "subjective values." If I said someone had subjective values, I would be saying that I think they apply their values depending on the situation in such a way that their values never really stop them from doing what they want to do. If you mean something different, please explain yourself.



No, what I mean is that values, ethics, and morality are subjective from the point of the individual.  What you feel is morally right may not be the same as what I view as morally right.  That is why this debate is at a deadlock: Your stance is based entirely on your own personal views of the matter, which are obviously opposed by different personal views.

But then again, the OGL doesn't support your views, it supports mine.



> Also, it wasn't inability to use correct terminology. Have you never in your life typed a word that wasn't exactly the right word? You understood what I meant; we communicated fine on that point. There was no reason to point out that I used the wrong word.



And I was being facecious.  Your point?



> How is WotC able to release anything as closed content then? As I'm sure you know, WotC isn't actually publishing under the OGL. Other publishers need to make rules material OGC, sure, but your comment above was in response to my belief that widespread free distribution of WotC's OGC in the form of UA could lead to them making 4E closed content, which goes back to the original point of this whole discussion- transcribing and posting UA is bad for us, the gamers.



To which I still don't think it is.  I don't think 4E will be closed content, and if it is, it will be a mistake on WotC's part.



> Actually, from what I've seen, the companies that don't follow these unwritten rules are the ones that take a reputation hit.



I've yet to read of one publisher complaining about another publisher's re-use of their material.  Which, considering that complaining about such re-use would _definately_ be against the "spirit" of the OGL, I doubt it will ever happen.



> There's really no reason not to be courteous here. I haven't heard of too many cases of one publisher stating that they'd prefer another publisher not re-use their OGC, so why not ask?



Because the Contributor has _no_ right under the OGL to say no and I see no reason to relinquish my right to use OGC because some publisher's having a bad hair day and doesn't feel like saying yes.



> We are just speculating without knowing the license or the new edition's rules, of course, but wouldn't you agree that it would be bad for us gamers if WotC makes 4E closed?



No.  In fact, it wouldn't be bad for us if WotC rolled over and died.  _Another_ purpose of the OGL was to allow the game to continue on even if D&D vanished, as nearly happened when TSR tanked.  The future of D&D was uncertain.  Whether or not 3E would be a success was uncertain.  So, while WotC retains control of the "brand name", the game itself is no longer subject to their fate or choices.



> Based on what we've seen of their management, and knowing that there are many opponents of open gaming at WotC, can't you see it as possible that giving away their work for free in the form of UA might lead to 4E being closed?



Possible?  Yes.  But considering the fact that so many opponents to the OGL are in WotC already, who's to say it wasn't already a possibility?



> I don't believe that people transcribing UA and posting it on the web will hurt WotC's sales of said book enough to matter. That isn't important though. Will WotC's management *think* it hurts their sales? Will this be ammunition for the anti-OGL people at WotC to push their agenda with regards to future WotC publications and/or 4E?



Don't care.  If management will allow their personal views of the OGL cloud their perception of the facts, than WotC gets exactly what they deserve for hiring people that are against the primary driving force behind a product's marketing model.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Explain to me how redistributing OGC (I assume that's what you meant) on a website is different from giving away RPG stuff for free.





			
				Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Giving away RPG stuff for free? Certainly not. The OGL does not allow that.
> 
> It does, however, permit the open and free exchange of Open Gaming Content.



Okay. Well explained. Serves me right for typing too fast.


----------



## Setanta (Apr 21, 2004)

@barsoomcore


> Explain to me how redistributing OGC (I assume that's what you meant) on a website is different from giving away RPG stuff for free.



It's not. 



> Who has "villified" any publisher on this thread? I certainly called into question Andy's opinion that redistributing OGC is "petty", but by no means did I intend to attack Andy himself. If I came across in that fashion, I apologize.



I was thinking of Nikolai when I used the term villified. I must have missed his later post where he said it wasn't personal. However, he had quite a bit to say about Andy. If you want examples, checkout his posts on page 5, toward the top. Bendris also had some stuff to say about Andy's opinion putting him in a bad light- not quite villifaction, so maybe the word was too strong, but Andy did catch some flak. 



> So you think it's okay to break the law if in your opinion, the law doesn't mean what it says. That's interesting. Try that in court in some time, let me know how you do.



Oh I know it won't stand up in court. I just don't feel any moral compunction to follow the letter of a law where it doesn't agree with the spirit of the law, or where the law is unjust. In the case of speeding, the spirit of the law is clearly to keep everyone safe on the roads, so while I feel morally obligated to drive a safe speed, I don't feel morally obligated to stay under the speed limit. Oh, and BTW, people have gone before a judge and gotten off on speeding violations because it was broad daylight with light traffic, and they were only speeding "a little" at least here in California. 



> Describe one bad consequence of this. I can't see how it would be bad at all. Bad for WotC, maybe, but who else? Maybe people who want 4e to enjoy the same broad user base and support that 3e enjoys, I guess.



Well, right now I use rules from WotC and many third party publishers, because they were all written for the same game. Choice is good. If WotC makes 4E closed, then they'll be writing rules for one game, and everyone else will be writing rules for another game (OGL D20 or another system), which will either reduce the choices available to me or increase my work as I would need to convert stuff. 



> I still haven't seen any of the supporters of the "non-sleazy" interpretation come up with a "non-sleazy" way to handle Bendris Noulg's super-module problem. Anyone?



Perhaps I'm off, but this is his idea of taking something like the environemental subraces in UA, like aquatic halflings, and expanding it to include more subraces, like volcanic halflings or something, right? That's perfectly fine. That kind of thing is the intent of the OGL. I don't think anybody here is saying that people shouldn't do that sort of thing. What some of us are saying is that people shouldn't just transcribe 100% of the text so that others don't have to pay for it. That's all. 



> If OGC gets redistributed, book sales in the industry will fall



I don't actually believe that it would hurt sales signicantly, unless it was done very quickly and efficiently after the product's release, and even then, I still doubt it would be significant. I'm more concerned about publishers perceiving that it would hurt their sales, and thus releasing less OGC. From Joe B's post, he for one seems to think that this sort of behaviour has the potential to hurt his sales. I'm concerned about that perception.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> Choice is good. If WotC makes 4E closed, then they'll be writing rules for one game, and everyone else will be writing rules for another game (OGL D20 or another system), which will either reduce the choices available to me or increase my work as I would need to convert stuff.



How will your choices be reduced, exactly? Nobody's going to take away the existing material, so your choices will remain at the very least exactly what they are today. And given that there's no reason to think existing publishers won't continue to expand their existing lines, your choice will actually increase.

Now, if you want to play the imaginary "Closed 4E", then yes, your choices will be limited. But your 3E choices will remain every bit as broad as they are today.


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'm off, but this is his idea of taking something like the environemental subraces in UA, like aquatic halflings, and expanding it to include more subraces, like volcanic halflings or something, right?



Nope. Here's the scenario:


			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I take Skull and Bones and create a supermodule that references those rules, and thus encourages those to purchase a GR product.



Proposed as an "ethical" thing. Rebutted by Bendris Noulg as follows:


			
				Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Your "super module" will fit one of the following four conditions:
> 
> 1. Redistribute the (S&B) OGC material making S&B irrelevant to the product.
> 2. Distribute derived material without mention of S&B.
> ...



I take it from your previous comments that you would not have a problem with #1 -- you actually haven't been saying that the OGL is supposed to increase the sales of those who use it, as far as I know. So if #1 looks okey-dokey to you, end of story.

This has all come down to a question of which is the better way to judge other people's actions: with morality or legality. And the truth is that a free society can only be built by using legality. A legal code is in fact a moral document, just one that's been dispossessed from any particular person's expression. This is important because what we need is a code of behaviour we can all agree to respect. If we don't have an externally defined code that everyone can consult on demand and understand as they need to, then we can't expect people to know what the standards of behaviour are. Expecting people to know what YOU consider moral, and asking them to adhere to some code that isn't defined anywhere, is futile. A community can't operate that way -- which is why the OGL is a big deal.

The OGL, as a legal document, takes the whole question of "What is right" out of the arena of discussion. Or rather, it lays out very clearly (well, reasonably clearly) "What is right", and people who make use of it do so on the understanding that they are agreeing with the license's definition of "right". If they didn't agree with it, they wouldn't use it.

To say that a publisher ought to receive consideration above and beyond what the license spells out is to assume a great deal on the part of the publisher. You're assuming that when a publisher uses the OGL, they're saying, "Here's some Open Content, but please don't use it in some particular way, even though that way is clearly stated as being okay according to the license I released it under." How do you know that's what the publisher wants?

Now perhaps the publisher has issued a statement saying exactly that. Fair enough. Now we know. But in the absence of such a statement, how do we determine the publisher's desires?

Well, it seems obvious to me that we look at what statements they have made about their release. And the OGL is such a statement. And what it says is pretty clear and has been quoted enough in this thread that I'm really wondering why people aren't getting this. Releasing product using the OGL is a statement, and one of the things that statement communicates is, "Here are the rules regarding the use of this content."

How is it possible that somebody who reads that statement, understands it and acts in accordance with it is behaving unethically? No explanation has been offered for this notion other than:

I think it's mean.
It will hurt the industry.
The former depends on an assumption about the publisher's desires that, in the absence of evidence for any particular release, is unsupportable. The latter is unsupported by any evidence so far submitted.


----------



## jeffh (Apr 21, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> It's not pretending--it's called "having a conscience".
> 
> It's called considering the effect my actions have on others, regardless of whether it is in the bounds of ethical or legal behavior.  I think it is immoral to be an exploitive jerk, and all the debate anybody tells me won't change that thought.
> 
> ...





And there you go again.  Even though I ahve already challenged you on this once, you keep with the circular arguments - you have yet to make any serious *attempt* to explain why you feel these actions are unethical.  (Actually you seemed to have backed off from that for a while there, but now here you're saying it again.)  That is precisely what people are questioning.  What, specifically, is unethical here?  You seem to think the answer is obvious to all, but plainly it isn't.  We're not arguing with you because we want to get away with doing things we think are wrong, we're arguing with you because there's no obvious reason to think they _are_ wrong.



			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> We are debating for this purpose.
> 
> Some of us feel that the creation of an SRD for Unearthed Arcana for free on the Internet violates a trust.  We discourage people from doing that, and debate why.  And we realize our actions have consequences, and the activities of a few may discourage the good elements of OGL.




Again, specifics please.  What trust is being violated?  If anyone is violating a trust, it's those publishers (which may or may not include WotC, and do to some extent appear to include at least one otherwise excellent "name" publisher) who release material under the OGL and then try to stop people from excercising the rights the OGL gives them.

All of these products say, straight out, in black and white, that you can use their open content pretty much however you please with only minimal strings attached.  I would be pretty upset at any publisher who did that and then tried to stop me from taking them at their word, and downright furious at one that tried to convince me that the OGL doesn't say what it obviously says.



			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> And before anybody thinks I am attacking anybody, I am attacking the attitude, not an individual.  I have not attacked others, but I see people ready to jump on both myself and Andy Collins for daring to speak out about this, questioning our motives.  I can't help it if some of the things we say make people feel guilty about their actions.




You may not be attacking anyone, but that last sentence, besides being factually wrong, is pretty damn condescending.  *Nobody* is questioning your motives and for someone accusing others of doing so you're sure doing a lot of it yourself.  Instead of repeating the same stand over and over (and in ways that, whether you realize it or not, do in fact border on the insulting), why don't you try *backing up your claims with solid reasons*, as most others have been trying to do?


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 21, 2004)

Gently, gang. Deep breaths.


----------



## Setanta (Apr 21, 2004)

@barsoomcore


> Now, if you want to play the imaginary "Closed 4E", then yes, your choices will be limited. But your 3E choices will remain every bit as broad as they are today.



Right, but with if the imaginary closed 4E is good? Then I would have to choose.



> This has all come down to a question of which is the better way to judge other people's actions: with morality or legality. And the truth is that a free society can only be built by using legality. A legal code is in fact a moral document, just one that's been dispossessed from any particular person's expression.



That's all true, but I believe there are ethics and courtesy beyond the law. As a quick example, would you consider every frivolous lawsuit filed to be ethical? I don't, but if you do, we'll just have to agree to disagree. 



> How is it possible that somebody who reads that statement, understands it and acts in accordance with it is behaving unethically? No explanation has been offered for this notion other than:
> 1. I think it's mean.
> 2. It will hurt the industry.
> The former depends on an assumption about the publisher's desires that, in the absence of evidence for any particular release, is unsupportable. The latter is unsupported by any evidence so far submitted.



I'm mainly concerned with #2. No publisher has gone on record claiming #1, but that's partly because they'd look lame given the lack of a legal leg to stand on, so it would be hard to come up with evidence to support #1. I believe there are publishers who feel that way though. You could consider Chris Pramas' request referenced by Bendris to be evidence, or not. It doesn't really matter. We're not going to have enough there for 'proof' one way or another. 

As for #2, sure, it's speculation that this behaviour will hurt the industry, but I haven't seen anything to make me think it's illogical speculation. We've seen one publisher speculate that it might hurt his sales. If he perceives it might, chances are others do as well. If a publisher perceives something as being a threat to sales, isn't it logical to assume they might look for ways to avoid it? What if that publisher is WotC, clearly the publisher in the best position to avoid releasing OGC, and clearly the one that would hurt the D20 world the most if they stopped supporting the OGL. It just happens to be a WotC product that started this whole discussion. Thus, I'm concerned.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2004)

Thanks, PK.

*hands out cookies to everyone*

We can all agree that cookies are good, can't we? Even if redistributing them is unethical?


----------



## Setanta (Apr 21, 2004)

@Bendris Noulg


> You may want to go back the the beginning of this thread and take some notes; for instance, dispite my personal disliking of AC as a game designer, I've never villified him in this thread. At most, I indicated that his opinion is not an official statement by way of WotC.



As noted in my reply to barsoomcore above, it was mainly Nikolai, but you did say Andy's comments put him in a bad light. That's not quite villifying him, but it's more flak than I think he deserves for stating his opinion on the matter.  



> And I'm saying that the concept of courtesy is widely varied. Is it *right* to release something as OGC and then complain when it actually gets treated like OGC?



Point taken. 



> No, you must deal with the fact that it is the OGL, not myself or anyone else, that is against your stance. 1b is a clear example of it. (Which, of course, would be why you and JohnRTroy never seem to want to discuss matters of the OGL itself but rather voice forth some unwritten morality play that has nothing to do with the facts of the matter.)



Please don't group me with JohnRTroy. We may on the surface be on the same side of this discussion, but he's come out with some moral judgments, which I have not (or at least not intended to- please see the next paragraph before responding to that). While I wouldn't copy UA onto a website, I don't pass any sort of judgment on someone wanting to do so, and I've stated that I understand why you want to. My concern here has always been that doing so will create a perception among publishers, most notably WotC, that producing OGC leads to lost sales as the work is given away for free. 

I've said I don't think it's right to distribute UA's OGC for free. I don't mean 'right' in a moral way, but that it's bad for the game because it might discourage publishers from producing more OGC. That's my only concern. If I knew it would not affect how publishers view OGC in the future, I certainly wouldn't care at all if you copied all OGC ever produced onto your website, then packaged it into a pdf and gave it away on rpgnow. 



> Oh, then you accept the fact that "Public Display" includes web pages?



Could you please accept that the fact that I've stated many times that what you want to do is fair ground under the terms of the OGL? Yes, it says you can post all the OGC in UA on a website and distribute it for free; I've never implied otherwise. 



> Note the tone of Andy's post. Then click the link to the GR boards and read the tone of Chris Pramas' post. Then give yourself 5 minutes to consider not why Andy's been villified (by individuals other than myself) but why Chris hasn't been?



I've read the post at GR's boards. I think Chris has every right to say he'd appreciate it if people don't give his work away. Again, perfectly legal for them to it, he just said he'd appreciate it if they don't. He's not whining or doing anything inappropriate, just saying he'd appreciate it if that didn't happen. If that guy goes ahead and makes a skull and bones free download, and Chris thinks it ends up hurting their sales, do you think he might change his policy of making just about everything GR produces OGC? Obviously I can't speak for Chris, but I know how I'd feel if I was in his shoes. Is it good for fans of GR's work that they make their stuff OGC? GR is a great company in terms of making pretty much everything open content, even stuff most companies would make PI. Anyone who would question Chris over his attitude toward the OGL isn't paying attention.  



> Well, other than perhaps Contempt charges...



IANAL, but as mentioned in my earlier reply to barsoomcore, people have actually gotten off on the "but I was driving safely" defense here in California. Like it or not. 



> Sure, as long as it's understood that distributing OGC != breaking the law.



I never said or implied otherwise. 



> Agreed, but rather besides the point. However, it is interesting to note that the PH, DMG, MM, MotP, and ELH all have price tags, too.



Right, but WotC waited some time after their release before adding those to the SRD. For all we know, WotC will add UA later in the year. I've never complained about the d20exchange and its six month waiting policy. 



> No, what I mean is that values, ethics, and morality are subjective from the point of the individual. What you feel is morally right may not be the same as what I view as morally right. That is why this debate is at a deadlock: Your stance is based entirely on your own personal views of the matter, which are obviously opposed by different personal views.



That's what I hoped you meant (we've gotten this far without insults, I hoped that hadn't changed). Anyway, the fact that I wouldn't copy OGC to a website or publication without first asking the publisher is irrelevant (I'm sure you wholeheartedly agree, no need to post it). What is relevant is that you think it's morally fine to transcribe UA onto your website, and the OGL clearly says that's legal. However, is it the right thing to do? Will it end up hurting the gaming community? I think it might, so I'd prefer you don't do it. That's all I'm saying. I'm not calling you or anyone else here a bad person or whatever.



> And I was being facecious. Your point?



OK. I couldn't tell without the inflection in your voice, er, I mean any smilies. Anyway, I think we can drop that one. 



> To which I still don't think it is. I don't think 4E will be closed content, and if it is, it will be a mistake on WotC's part.



I hope you're right (about them not releasing it as closed content). I disagree about it being a mistake on their part. It would be pretty trivial for them to come out with 4E and a whole new OGL, maybe called ORPGL or something, that simply has more restrictive language, and less information in the SRD. I wouldn't like that, and I doubt you would either, but hey, what are the chances it will actually happen? 



> I've yet to read of one publisher complaining about another publisher's re-use of their material. Which, considering that complaining about such re-use would definately be against the "spirit" of the OGL, I doubt it will ever happen.



Oh, it's happened. A while back I was reading Publisher A's message boards. They were talking about an upcoming project that included OGC from many publishers. A customer asked why Publisher B's material was not included. Publisher A said "because we asked them and they were mean and said they didn't want us to." I sent Publisher B an e-mail asking "What's up? Were you mean?" Publisher B basically said that they had a long history with Publisher A and they had decided to not include each other's OGC in any future work. I've heard of other such events, but this is the only one that I have anything like personal knowledge of. 



> Because the Contributor has no right under the OGL to say no and I see no reason to relinquish my right to use OGC because some publisher's having a bad hair day and doesn't feel like saying yes.



There's more to it than a bad hair day, of course. Sure, they don't have a legal right to say no, but the industry is small enough there's really no reason to upset anyone by using their work against their will, OGL supported or not. 



> No. In fact, it wouldn't be bad for us if WotC rolled over and died.



You really think that? The whole purpose of this thread is discuss distributing material they wrote. Sure, they've come down a few pegs, but by and large, they're still producing the best D&D material overall (if you disagree, fine, but that's a whole other thread, so let's not start that discussion here). If they went away, there's a good chance the better writers would end up elsewhere, but any other publishers would lack WotC's market penetration. Perhaps someone who knows something about marketing can address the significance of that. Just losing their distribution would be a blow- not everyone is comfortable ordering stuff online. 



> Possible? Yes. But considering the fact that so many opponents to the OGL are in WotC already, who's to say it wasn't already a possibility?



Of course it's a possibility already, but giving those people more ammunition doesn't help the chances of WotC staying on the OGL bandwagon.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 21, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'm off, but this is his idea of taking something like the environemental subraces in UA, like aquatic halflings, and expanding it to include more subraces, like volcanic halflings or something, right? That's perfectly fine. That kind of thing is the intent of the OGL. I don't think anybody here is saying that people shouldn't do that sort of thing. What some of us are saying is that people shouldn't just transcribe 100% of the text so that others don't have to pay for it. That's all.



See, here we have two conflicting interests...  Now bear with me, I'm just trying to explain this.

See, we have essentially two choices: (1) Transcribe the material word for word or (2) treat it like "crippled" OGC where it is transformed into an outline (i.e., just the rule and specific situational/conditional information related to the rule) and then re-written..

The problem comes with the re-written part.  We can assume that AC and company knew _exactly_ what they were writing (disclaimor: Errata pending, of course) and used words for specific reasons.  Granted, we may interpret those words or be inspired by them differently, but those are the words in the book.  Where this gets messy is when I, in preparing a Distribution (such as UA+Fan), re-write the material in such a manner that a particular fact, tidbit, hint, suggestion, whatever, doesn't come across the way it should.

See, this is the problem with "crippled" OGC...  It leads to a lot of extra work by virtue of outlining and rewriting, and then you're _always_ double-checking yourself to make sure that what was originally expressed in your Distribution is the same as the Distribution you are deriving from.  Granted, you should always see if you can express the idea _better_ than the original, but it seems counter-productive to the "spirit" of Open Gaming to put folks through all the trouble of trying to at least match the original's quality if that quality happens to be high.

(Consequently, this is why I'm likely one of the few people that actually takes the time to de-cripple OGC, as it is _a lot_ of friggin' work, but it's also yet another reason for Aedon's trips'n'stumbles during the past year.)

I guess it could be that, from the standpoint of not making a "100% as written minus Product Identity", what you are suggesting feels kinda like "crippled" OGC except this crippling is now voluntary of the re-user rather than occuring at the source (which is to say, it feels both wrong _and_ wierd).  Thus, if "I" were to actually do this project (beyond the scope of what I'm actually using in my game, that is), I would indeed use the [as written] - [PI] formula because the other way is just buggy.

P.S.: I don't think I'd do "Volcanic" anything as an Environmental Subrace, but I might look at it as an Elemental Race (Magma, to be precise).  Reason being that a volcano (or cluster there of) are typically locations within a larger environment and thus wouldn't serve as a suitable source of physical influence for an entire race.  Then again, it's fantasy, so with a little backstory about "thousands of miles of volcanic vents and ash plumes" from another person submitting the race would likely be welcomed.

Also, having done a preview, I see you've replied to me again...


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> Right, but with if the imaginary closed 4E is good? Then I would have to choose.



"Have to" is rather strong language. The only case in which you would "have to" choose is one in which 4E is demonstrably better in objective ways than 3E.

And for that, I direct you to the ongoing thread discussing the virtues and flaws of the HERO system currently raging a few threads below this one. I present that as evidence that such comparisions are inevitably subjective and thus no one can reasonably claim to be forced to choose one system or another.


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> Would you consider every frivolous lawsuit filed to be ethical?



That the legal system is problematic, especially in the United States, I would not argue. We don't have the same kind of problem here in Canada because our legal system doesn't make that behaviour worthwhile.

Don't blame the lawyers, though. Blame the politicians who create bad laws.


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> No publisher has gone on record claiming #1 (That it's mean), but that's partly because they'd look lame given the lack of a legal leg to stand on, so it would be hard to come up with evidence to support #1.



Yeah, pretty hard to come up with "evidence" to support the notion that something is "mean". Also pretty hard to justify that other people shouldn't do something just because you think it's mean. People shouldn't murder each other not because it's mean, but because a society where people can murder each other is unsafe.


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> I believe there are publishers who feel that way though.



Then perhaps they shouldn't use a license that says it's okay to republish their work. If they think it's mean for people to do that, then I guess they should be prepared to have their feelings hurt if they tell people it's okay for them to do that.


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> As for #2, sure, it's speculation that this behaviour will hurt the industry, but I haven't seen anything to make me think it's illogical speculation. We've seen one publisher speculate that it might hurt his sales. If he perceives it might, chances are others do as well. If a publisher perceives something as being a threat to sales, isn't it logical to assume they might look for ways to avoid it?



I've said as much. If publishing OGC turns out to be a bad business model, publishers will stop doing it. I don't see how this is bad for the industry. On the contrary, this is good for the industry. Publishers continuing to publish OGC even though they lose money at it is bad for the industry because then they'll run out of money and won't be able to publish anything, open or closed.

Publishers making money is a healthy industry. What does it matter if they're making money publishing open or closed content?


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> What if that publisher is WotC, clearly the publisher in the best position to avoid releasing OGC, and clearly the one that would hurt the D20 world the most if they stopped supporting the OGL. It just happens to be a WotC product that started this whole discussion. Thus, I'm concerned.



If WotC never publishes another word of OGC, how does that hurt the d20 world? I agree that every word of OGC they publish helps because it becomes part of the open content fund that all publishers can dip into to create their own products. It does not follow that no future content will hurt -- just that things won't get any better than they already are. And with the D&D SRD and the Modern SRD released, things are pretty good.

We (those publishers commited to the OGL) can take it from here, thanks.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 21, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> As noted in my reply to barsoomcore above, it was mainly Nikolai, but you did say Andy's comments put him in a bad light. That's not quite villifying him, but it's more flak than I think he deserves for stating his opinion on the matter.



Actually, I'm going to pull a part of your reply to Barsoomcore before addressing this...



			
				Setanta to Barsoomcore said:
			
		

> No publisher has gone on record claiming #1, but that's partly because they'd look lame given the lack of a legal leg to stand on, so it would be hard to come up with evidence to support #1.



This is the "bad light" that AC put himself in. Also, I was only indicating why he received the flak he did; the statement itself is not flak.



> Please don't group me with JohnRTroy. We may on the surface be on the same side of this discussion, but he's come out with some moral judgments, which I have not (or at least not intended to- please see the next paragraph before responding to that). While I wouldn't copy UA onto a website, I don't pass any sort of judgment on someone wanting to do so, and I've stated that I understand why you want to. My concern here has always been that doing so will create a perception among publishers, most notably WotC, that producing OGC leads to lost sales as the work is given away for free.



Alright... Threads sometimes gets two people at each other because of a third person's post. General statements are sometimes taken as targeted statements. You are you and he is he.

I stand corrected.



> I've said I don't think it's right to distribute UA's OGC for free. I don't mean 'right' in a moral way, but that it's bad for the game because it might discourage publishers from producing more OGC. That's my only concern. If I knew it would not affect how publishers view OGC in the future, I certainly wouldn't care at all if you copied all OGC ever produced onto your website, then packaged it into a pdf and gave it away on rpgnow.



Alright. However, my own view is that the OGC portion of the work is too often associated with a company's profit line. The "Crunch vs Fluff" issue has led to "Crunch" being the main product of the d20 industry. Yet, it is this "Crunch" that is slated as Open Gaming Content. Thus, the line where it is "right" for the industry to reproduce the material after its original contribution is an unknown vector in the equation. If I buy a book today and get uber-inspired and create something from it during the next week, how long must I wait before Distributing my derivitive work with the re-used OGC? What is considered a "fair time"? Cergorach gave a scaled time-system, d20X has 6 months for any product. And while I don't know if Cergorach asked anyone "in the biz" before coming up with his system, I know that I suggested 6 months for the RD-proposed OGC distribution and that suggestion was adopted by d20X before I even joined.



> Could you please accept that the fact that I've stated many times that what you want to do is fair ground under the terms of the OGL? Yes, it says you can post all the OGC in UA on a website and distribute it for free; I've never implied otherwise.



Actually, this is half-related to the fact that many statements made against a UA-SRD project (or any similar project) is mostly about publisher impact. What I'm saying is that the publishers are fully aware that OGC _can_ be reproduced and distributed and _should_ be considering this when developing their products. This, of course, relates to the "Crunch vs Fluff" issue above, being that there is such a demand for "Crunch" that publishers have essentially stopped paying attention to how much of their material was becoming dominated by Open Game Content _and_ they forgot about the possible outcome of doing so.



> I've read the post at GR's boards. I think Chris has every right to say he'd appreciate it if people don't give his work away. Again, perfectly legal for them to it, he just said he'd appreciate it if they don't. He's not whining or doing anything inappropriate, just saying he'd appreciate it if that didn't happen. If that guy goes ahead and makes a skull and bones free download, and Chris thinks it ends up hurting their sales, do you think he might change his policy of making just about everything GR produces OGC? Obviously I can't speak for Chris, but I know how I'd feel if I was in his shoes. Is it good for fans of GR's work that they make their stuff OGC? GR is a great company in terms of making pretty much everything open content, even stuff most companies would make PI. Anyone who would question Chris over his attitude toward the OGL isn't paying attention.



I think you missed my point (although that is a fair analysis). I was indicating that you needed to compare the attitude difference between the two posts; basically, I was trying to illustrate why AC was in a "bad light" from his post and why CP wasn't. Chris is both calm, courtious, and, most importantly, entirely factual (and I'm not just saying that because he's the head of one of my Top 5 Pubs) despite it being a topic he was obviously opposed to.

Now, since you bring it up, I'd like to return to point of "Co-Adaptability Statements". There is some degree of "linking" between products. GR's Shaman references (but strangely enough doesn't require) S&S's Relics & Rituals. The OGL Interlink connects some GR titles with titles from other companies. M&M's Superlink allows 3rd Party M&M products (don't scald me if this isn't accurate; I'm not an M&M fan so that's more of an "outsider's view" of it). Indeed, it seems the leader in "Co-Adaptability Licensing" does indeed seem to be Green Ronin (way to go!). However, does it go far enough? Would it not be more beneficial, to Publishers _and_ fan-projects if there was a little more open-air between those that produce derivitive works? Wouldn't Green Ronin benefit from another entity's product if said product had a "Required to Use" list on the back cover that included GR's Assassin's Handbook? Thus, rather than waiting to release derivitive material, or risking redistribution before the origating source is comfortable with it, or re-inventing the wheel just to avoid the problem entirely, I could instead just include an NPC that uses the Assassin Base Class with the reader refered back to the Green Ronin book? Wouldn't _that_ promote sales and further distribution of the original product far more than huddling over coveted OGC and hoping that no one will reproduce it?

That's the problem with the business model for the entire Open Gaming industry; it puts companies into competition for the same gaming dollar when they could be working more cooperatively. I'm not saying that it should be some big, smoochy love-fest between publishers, but rather an attempt to "offficialize" some form of standing agreement.

For instance, the license could be as simple as 

"By using this License, You may indicate that Your Work contains material derived from any Distribution included by the Participant of this License. You may not claim that the originating Distribution requires Your Work unless it is factually true. You may not claim compatibility. You may not dispute Copyright. By accepting this License, You are accepting the limitation of not reproducing OGC directly from the source; the Item may be used in scenario design (such as a Character with a Feat), but full reproduction of the OGC will be limited to only that which has been altered by You."

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but I think the idea here is clear enough.

Now, GR can decide that they will participate. They "sign in" and include the following Product Lines: Master Class, Races of Renown, and Secret Arcana.

Now, in my product, I can include a line on the Title Page, Back Cover, or Both, "Contains material derived from the _Secret College of Necromancy_ by Green Ronin." Then, within the product, I am talking about a specific group of Sorcerers, and I include the line, "These Sorcerers may only gain spells taken from the Necromancer's Spell List in _Secret College of Necromancy_."

However, in doing so, I have made a change to the spell _ray of palsey_. I will then reproduce _ray of palsey_ with my changes.

And, naturally, SCoN will be in the Section 15.

So, I've now plugged SCoN on my back cover, title page, or both; I have referred to the Spell List from SCoN, and I have left all of the spells from that list _except_ the one I changed out of my distribution, all the while remaining compliant to the OGL.

If publishers want to "reign in" OGC distribution on the web, than this is the sort of step _they_ need to take. Most probably haven't thought of it because, per the OGL, it's a no-no; except, however, that the OGL does provide an exception: "...except as expressly licensed in another, independant Agreement with the owner..." Such a license as I (probably most ineptly) describe above would serve as just that.



> IANAL, but as mentioned in my earlier reply to barsoomcore, people have actually gotten off on the "but I was driving safely" defense here in California. Like it or not.



Well, in Chicago (my home town), "California Stops" get you tickets.



> Right, but WotC waited some time after their release before adding those to the SRD.



True, but they were also not released under the OGL and Wizards indicated that, over time, these books would be added. UA is a different beast altogether: It is under the OGL, and WotC has not indicated if or when it will go into the SRD or into an SRD-side document. And, personally, I don't think it will happen, per my comments on page 1 of this thread.



> That's what I hoped you meant (we've gotten this far without insults, I hoped that hadn't changed). Anyway, the fact that I wouldn't copy OGC to a website or publication without first asking the publisher is irrelevant (I'm sure you wholeheartedly agree, no need to post it). What is relevant is that you think it's morally fine to transcribe UA onto your website, and the OGL clearly says that's legal. However, is it the right thing to do? Will it end up hurting the gaming community? I think it might, so I'd prefer you don't do it. That's all I'm saying. I'm not calling you or anyone else here a bad person or whatever.



Alright, here's the "unspoken critisism" from myself about a project like this.

First, we have two-three people claiming to have scanned/OCR'd the document. Second, we have people (like myself) that indicate that they are willing to transcribe the information. However, transcription seems a waste of time _if_ a scanned copy that is OGL-compliant is available; Why type when you can copy/paste? So the folks with the scans aren't sending them (either non-comunicating, held to a "time lock", or persuaded by Andy's post on page 1 not to). Regardless, I feel like I'm spending too much time transcribing Insanity when I _know_ Breakdaddy can email me that section after a few minutes of scrubbing the PI out of it, so I'm getting distracted easily while trying to do so.

So I'm left wondering _if_ this project is even still going.

Either way, if transcribed, it will be _months_ before it is near completed, thus the idea of waiting months seems kinda non-sequitor. If scanned, it probably should be "held back" for a few months, but we come again to the question: How long is long enough?



> I hope you're right (about them not releasing it as closed content). I disagree about it being a mistake on their part. It would be pretty trivial for them to come out with 4E and a whole new OGL, maybe called ORPGL or something, that simply has more restrictive language, and less information in the SRD. I wouldn't like that, and I doubt you would either, but hey, what are the chances it will actually happen?



Slim, I think. Over all, the OGL/d20STL has been relatively successful, although the economy has been in a slump for a while so it's likely not showing compared to the "forecast" made in the bumpin' economy of '99.



> Oh, it's happened. A while back I was reading Publisher A's message boards. They were talking about an upcoming project that included OGC from many publishers. A customer asked why Publisher B's material was not included. Publisher A said "because we asked them and they were mean and said they didn't want us to." I sent Publisher B an e-mail asking "What's up? Were you mean?" Publisher B basically said that they had a long history with Publisher A and they had decided to not include each other's OGC in any future work. I've heard of other such events, but this is the only one that I have anything like personal knowledge of.



Yikes... To bad. I'm not going to ask for more details, nor even speculate who, but that is unfortunate.



> There's more to it than a bad hair day, of course. Sure, they don't have a legal right to say no, but the industry is small enough there's really no reason to upset anyone by using their work against their will, OGL supported or not.



See, that's the catch right there. Supposedly, by releasing material as OGC, my re-use of it _should not_ ever be considered against the will of the Contributor because the Contributor consents to _all_ forms of re-use by using the license.

That's the first "price" of Open Gaming; The second being that you must acknowledge all contributing sources in your Section 15.



> You really think that? The whole purpose of this thread is discuss distributing material they wrote. Sure, they've come down a few pegs, but by and large, they're still producing the best D&D material overall (if you disagree, fine, but that's a whole other thread, so let's not start that discussion here). If they went away, there's a good chance the better writers would end up elsewhere, but any other publishers would lack WotC's market penetration. Perhaps someone who knows something about marketing can address the significance of that. Just losing their distribution would be a blow- not everyone is comfortable ordering stuff online.



There are several things to consider.

First, the OGL allows D&D (in form if not name) to continue forward without WotC. This was absolutely intentional.

Second, the writers/staff could easily go their own ways, produce d20 on their own or for somebody else, etc.

Third, by now, the d20 logo has become nearly synonous to D&D (indeed, just indicating a product is SRD-derived is enough for an OGL-only product). While the "groundwork" marketing of D&D would be lost, there's little reason to believe that such groundwork couldn't be formed in another manner by another publisher. Cooperative marketing, plugging SRD-derived products in-total would be a big start.

Don't get me wrong, I feel no ill-will towards WotC as a business entity; I just don't see them as an indispensable necessity for the RPG industry.



> Of course it's a possibility already, but giving those people more ammunition doesn't help the chances of WotC staying on the OGL bandwagon.



Except we still don't know how this will pan out. But one must also consider the speed of this project. For instance, has my having W&V in my material effected sales? Will it effect sales when I add Taint? Will it effect sales when I add Sanity? Will it effect sales when I then take these three and put them together into a single document on their own? Will it effect sales if someone sends me a transcription of Legendary Weapons and I add that? At what point does a collection of OGC actually become a threat to the sales of the product that OGC originates in?


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 21, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> please, somebody kill me



What did I miss and will http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17294]this make you feel better?[/font]


----------



## kenjib (Apr 21, 2004)

I have two points.

The first is that if so-called ethical use of the OGL requires that you understand some kind of "spirit" that isn't in the word of the license and indeed only exists in the inner circles of some OGL mailing list for publishers or buried two years back on the message board of each respective publisher, then the OGL is a very, very, poorly written legal document and anyone who releases material under it has poor business sense.  If making a free PDF release of all of the open content in Unearthed Arcana is not completely okay, ethical, and uncontested by WotC, then WotC needs to draft up a new revised license and start releasing material under that instead (including re-releasing all prior material, such as the SRDs).

The second is that if someone doesn't want people to copy their entire book and redistribute it, then they should not release it as 100% (or approaching 100%) open content.  It's that simple.  The burden of responsibility here does not weigh on the person who re-uses the material.  It lies on the person who makes the business decision to sign a legal agreement and be bound by it's terms.

Once you get into talking about "spirit" and whatever else is supposedly implied but not stated in the OGL, you are actually making it very difficult for anyone to operate with the license because nobody knows what the rules are.  If nobody knows what the rules are, then the chance that ugly disagreements will result just increases.  Ambiguity breeds disagreement.  The simple solution is for people to be clear in their legal language and make sure that their legal agreements do what they say and say what they do.

Why the heck are people signing on to this license if they don't want to agree with what it says????


----------



## Wasgo (Apr 21, 2004)

kenjib said:
			
		

> Why the heck are people signing on to this license if they don't want to agree with what it says????




Because many D20 based OGL products sell better than for systems that have a smaller user base. That being said, most publishers go well beyond the minimum requirements of OGC, because of they not to cripple their products, and usually by their own statement, it's because they want to allow other companies to reuse their gaming elements without problem. However, very few would claim they do so in order to allow someone to republish their whole work.

Trying to modify the license so that people could reuse the work in some capacities but not others, given the existing OGL license which must also be valid is a legal nightmare. So rather than do that, they publish very open works, and hope people won't abuse their intended use.

A legal document doesn't have a spirit, but there is a spirit in which they choose how much work to make OGC. They're giving back to the community, both of fans, and publishers. I somehow doubt declaring an entire product to be OGC is a 'business model',


----------



## RavenProject (Apr 21, 2004)

Hmm, all those "if wotc don't agree with redistributing UA, then they shouldn't make it open content" is quite short sighted. UA couldn't be published otherwise because the majority of the content is either common house ruling or third party OGC. The common house rulings aren't a legal problem but publishing them closed would stir up much anger because it could make other, already published D20 products "illegal" and prohibit future products from using them.

From a legal point of view they have to declare half of the UA material OGC anyway and it would be to much of a hassle to make such a distinctive declaration. I'm quite sure, that WotC made UA OGC because they had no other viable choice.

However, it is a fact, that the UA is OGC and thus the content can be used accordingly to the OGL. This includes redistributing it for "free".


----------



## frugal (Apr 21, 2004)

I am really not sure how you guys have managed to come up with this many posts discussing what is in effect a non issue . Allow me to explain:

1 - When WoTC released the 3 core rules books, all 3 books were (and still are) completely closed content. This allowed WoTC to be the sole seller of 3E products. 

2 - Then after a while WoTC released the SRD for 3E under the OGL, this allowed 3rd party publishers to write derivative rules.

2a - Many different formatted versions appear on web site as html, doc, pdf etc.

3 - Some publishers wanted to write completely closed systems (I believe Spycraft is non-OGL), so they licensed the closed D20 system directly from WoTC

4 - WoTC produced the 3 core 3.5E rule books, again all 3 were completely closed content.

5 - A while after the release of the closed content WoTC released an OGL 3.5 SRD (The timeframe of 2 months springs to mind).

5a - Many different formatted versions appear on web site as html, doc, pdf etc.

6 - WoTC releases Unearthed Arcana as OGL and all hell breaks loose.


*Hypothosis:* WoTC deliberatly released Unearthed Arcana under the OGL with full knowledge of the consequences.

*Evidence:* In the past WoTC have released a closed content version first and then 2 months later released an OGL version. If they did not want to have people transcribe and redistribute the product then they would have released it as closed content and then released an open version in a few months time.

If a publisher wants to retain complete control over their product for a fixed period of time before opening it up then they should release the hardcopy as closed content and then release an SRD as open content later on. 


*Personal Opinion: * Personally I would rather see publishers release a closed content book and then after a time allow me to download the open version than release the book as open and then complain when people treat it as open.


----------



## RavenProject (Apr 21, 2004)

frugal said:
			
		

> 3 - Some publishers wanted to write completely closed systems (I believe Spycraft is non-OGL), so they licensed the closed D20 system directly from WoTC



Why should anyone do that? You can use the OGL and still publish a completly closed product. There are dozen of such systems. Using the OGL does not mean you have to publish your system, that's based on the SRD as OGC as well.


			
				frugal said:
			
		

> *Hypothosis:* WoTC deliberatly released Unearthed Arcana under the OGL with full knowledge of the consequences.



Of course they are fully aware of the consequences but like I said, they had no other choice.


----------



## kenjib (Apr 21, 2004)

Wasgo said:
			
		

> Because many D20 based OGL products sell better than for systems that have a smaller user base. That being said, most publishers go well beyond the minimum requirements of OGC, because of they not to cripple their products, and usually by their own statement, it's because they want to allow other companies to reuse their gaming elements without problem. However, very few would claim they do so in order to allow someone to republish their whole work.




So what is the distinction here?  Is it that they only want it re-distributed if the re-distributor charges money for it?  Is it that it can be a printed book or PDF but not a web site?  Is it that they only want a certain percentage of it to be re-distributable by any one publisher and/or publication?  Is it that there should be some waiting period before I re-distribute?  Is it that they want people to ask permission and approve it on a case by case basis?  Is it that they don't want me to to use it if I said something they didn't like at some point in the past?  Is it some other restraint that I haven't thought of here?  Is it some combination of some or all of these?

Note that in all of these cases, the OGL is altogether meaningless since the publisher expects you to effectively create a new contract with them in order to re-use the content.  Why is that OGL even in the book in the first place?  Is it so they can get more customers to buy their book with d20 branding while they simultaneously try to avoid their own obligations in the agreement?  That's what it's starting to sound like to me and to be honest I'm losing a bit of respect for the publishers/authors mentioned so far that are trying to guilt people into not licensing their material.

Ambiguity breeds disagreement.  This whole situation is just setting people up to disagree with one another.



			
				Wasgo said:
			
		

> Trying to modify the license so that people could reuse the work in some capacities but not others, given the existing OGL license which must also be valid is a legal nightmare.




This is a good point regarding making the change now, but it wouldn't be a legal nightmare if they waited for 4e to make the change.  The business model is working fine for now and D&D sales continue to do very well, so they could easily wait until then if the current OGL bothers them.



			
				Wasgo said:
			
		

> So rather than do that, they publish very open works, and hope people won't abuse their intended use.




What intended use are you talking about?  Some vague notion from the publisher that is completely at odds with the license printed in the book and not stated anywhere for a licensee to understand, or perhaps posted two years back on a company messageboard?  How am I, as a licensee, expected to understand which of the numerous restrictions I mentioned previously may or may not apply?

I shouldn't have to contact the publisher to find out what additional random restrictions he wants from me to redistribute under the OGL.  This renders the OGL completely meaningless since I am effectively back to the old days of negotiating a license directly with the publisher.  What's the point of the OGL again?  I would much rather publishers declare their open content honestly and let me use it as per the terms of the license without any unknowable hidden strings attached.

Ambiguity breeds disagreement.  This whole situation is just setting people up to disagree with one another.



			
				Wasgo said:
			
		

> A legal document doesn't have a spirit, but there is a spirit in which they choose how much work to make OGC. They're giving back to the community, both of fans, and publishers. I somehow doubt declaring an entire product to be OGC is a 'business model',




Well if they aren't using the license according to a business model, then they shouldn't be surprised if their use of the OGL doesn't serve their business well, should they?

In case you are talking about WotC here, the OGL was clearly a business model from the start and in fact was a solution created to address the problems that TSR had during 2nd edition with fragmented product lines and low-print-run and unprofitable support material.  It has been a very successful solution in fact.  If WotC did not expect to see business benefit in the rules from Unearthed Arcana trickling out to other producers of material then you can be assured that they would not have released it under the OGL - just like they haven't with most of their books.  Unlike other companies they don't have to use the OGL to produce d20 compatible books.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2004)

Wasgo said:
			
		

> Very few (publishers) would claim they (publish OGC) in order to allow someone to republish their whole work.



Let me quote a publisher on this very subject -- Green Ronin, from their excellent _Skull & Bones_ campaign book:


			
				Skull & Bones said:
			
		

> In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use the Open Game Content.
> 
> "Use" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content.
> 
> "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute.



This is printed on page 3 of the book.

In the absence of any other information from the publisher, it is crystal clear that they are claiming to allow me to do whatever the heck I want to do with this content, provided I abide by the terms of the license.

By using the license, they free me from the burden of having to figure out what they claim to allow me to do. Of course they would prefer that I not simply republish the content as a competing product. And I'm not going to. But they are saying that it's okay for me to do so, if I want to.


----------



## kenjib (Apr 21, 2004)

RavenProject said:
			
		

> Of course they are fully aware of the consequences but like I said, they had no other choice.




The other choice would have been to not use OGC from other publishers in the book.  If they want to use the license, they shouldn't try to exploit the parts they like and wiggle out of the parts they don't like.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2004)

RavenProject said:
			
		

> I'm quite sure, that WotC made UA OGC because they had no other viable choice.



Okay, so if UA is OGC because some non-trivial percent of its content was ALREADY OGC, then this debate just got even more absurd.

If the content is already OGC, then WotC is doing exactly what people are saying is so terrible for the industry -- Hoovering up OGC and spitting it back out onto the market without adding any value to it.

Where are the publishers who originally created this content? Why aren't they boo-hooing over how unethical WotC is to not understand that they didn't MEAN IT when they printed the OGL in their products?

I could have put this content up on my website BEFORE the book came out, so how come doing it AFTER the book comes out is suddenly a "sleazy" thing to do? Stuff and nonsense.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> What did I miss and will http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17294]this make you feel better?[/font]



 Nothing more exciting than a double post, and yes, thank you. It does.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2004)

Considering the tone of my last couple of posts, let me make something clear:

I don't think there was anything wrong in WotC's use of OGC in Unearthed Arcana. I don't think anyone at WotC has said anything to indicate that they're trying to "wiggle out" of anything. I don't in fact, think any d20 publisher at all has tried to wiggle out of the OGL or abused the OGL in any way, or called anybody names.

This is an extraordinarily friendly industry, in my experience. I like everyone I've met who's involved in it.

I may be getting a little frustrated at all this, I admit. For me, the separation of legal from personal is very straightforward and very necessary for things to operate smoothly. Not everyone sees things that way, I know. I apologize if I've gotten heated.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 21, 2004)

RavenProject said:
			
		

> Why should anyone do that? You can use the OGL and still publish a completly closed product. There are dozen of such systems. Using the OGL does not mean you have to publish your system, that's based on the SRD as OGC as well.



Please reread the License again, material derived of the SRD or OGC is by devinition OGC as well.

Spycraft for example is also OGC, except for a few licensed parts from StarWars. Only WotC and people WotC gives permission to can produce material based on D&D like rules that aren't OGC from a different company.


			
				RavenProject said:
			
		

> Of course they are fully aware of the consequences but like I said, they had no other choice.



WotC did have a choice, they could have made a seperate agreement with the OGC contributors featured, this could be done if all parties involved agreed. They didn't probably to much of an hassle.

Also, once material is designated as OGC it can't be undesignated. (read the OGL FAQ)


----------



## RavenProject (Apr 21, 2004)

I am fully aware of that. I only tried to simplify and shorten my posting but obviously this wasn't very clever. 



			
				Cergorach said:
			
		

> Please reread the License again, material derived of the SRD or OGC is by devinition OGC as well.



Yes but this only means, that the stuff, that was taken from the SRD(for example) is OGC. Everything else in the book can still be closed. If I create an NPC using the SRD ruleset, then this does not mean, that the NPC is automatically OGC.



			
				Cergorach said:
			
		

> WotC did have a choice, they could have made a seperate agreement with the OGC contributors featured, this could be done if all parties involved agreed. They didn't probably to much of an hassle.



I should have written: _"Of course they are fully aware of the consequences but like I said, they had no other *viable* choice."_


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 21, 2004)

RavenProject said:
			
		

> I am fully aware of that. I only tried to simplify and shorten my posting but obviously this wasn't very clever.



No it wasn't ;-)


			
				RavenProject said:
			
		

> Yes but this only means, that the stuff, that was taken from the SRD(for example) is OGC. Everything else in the book can still be closed. If I create an NPC using the SRD ruleset, then this does not mean, that the NPC is automatically OGC.



The name, the description, the image aren't. The game related rules are, thus any special attacks or abilities it might have would be OGC, and of course the statblock.


			
				RavenProject said:
			
		

> I should have written: _"Of course they are fully aware of the consequences but like I said, they had no other *viable* choice."_



Maybe your divinition of viable is different from mine, because i do see it as a viable alternative, just not an easy one. Just because it's not the easiest way, doesn't mean it isn't viable...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 21, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> Well, right now I use rules from WotC and many third party publishers, because they were all written for the same game. Choice is good. If WotC makes 4E closed, then they'll be writing rules for one game, and everyone else will be writing rules for another game (OGL D20 or another system), which will either reduce the choices available to me or increase my work as I would need to convert stuff.




Why do you, as a player, care whether 4e is open content or not?

I presume it's because you would rather play a game published and supported by dozens of companies, instead of published and NOT supported by one big company.

So if 4e comes out and it's not Open, what? You're going to suddenly turn around this line of thinking and buy into a game that is NOT supported by a large, open publishing community?

I just don't see how anyone who has even the shallowest understanding of the OGL can be remotely concerned about whether or not 4e is open; or how those with a deeper understanding of what the OGL means and why it was done in the first place would consider for a moment that 4e would be closed.


Wulf


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 21, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> If WotC never publishes another word of OGC, how does that hurt the d20 world?




And let's just point out, 4e notwithstanding, _the majority of WOTC publications are already closed content._

We wouldn't be having this argument at all if it weren't for the fact the UA is WOTC's first substantive publication that contains any open content.


Wulf


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 21, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Okay, so if UA is OGC because some non-trivial percent of its content was ALREADY OGC, then this debate just got even more absurd.
> 
> If the content is already OGC, then WotC is doing exactly what people are saying is so terrible for the industry -- Hoovering up OGC and spitting it back out onto the market without adding any value to it.
> 
> ...




EXACTLY.

You should have left it as a double post, because it is THAT IMPORTANT. I took the liberty of bolding my favorite part.

Wulf


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2004)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I took the liberty of bolding my favorite part.



Oh, sure. You're just going to redistribute my post, is that it, regardless of how I may feel about it? What if I don't want you to do that? Just because I posted in this thread doesn't mean you can quote me in this thread, you know. You're nothing but an exploitative sleazeball.

And a meanie.


----------



## Dogbrain (Apr 21, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> I imagine a lot of the people who staunchly stand by the OGL as a legal way of getting stuff for free are also people who complain if they're pulled over going 5 mph (or even 8 kph) over the speed limit in broad daylight on an open road, saying "But I was driving perfectly safely!"





Prove your accusation.  Cite real evidence that this is the case.  Of course, you did include sufficient weasel words in your post to be able to worm out of it if you are called on your accusation.  Well, I'm calling you out:

You are flat-out accusing those who would do A of also doing B.  Prove that this is the case.  Or are you just going to weasel about it?  If you weasel, what does this say about your credibility as a source on what is and is not UNIVERSALLY "ethical"?


----------



## Setanta (Apr 21, 2004)

Egads, lots of posts while the message boards were slow this morning. First, I generally void this kind of thing (note the low post count combined with the old join date- I'm a lurker, not a poster) because I've seen too many of these things  devolve, but the two main people I'm conversing with here are being cool even though we don't agree. That's great.



> _Dogbrain posted:_
> Prove your accusation. Cite real evidence that this is the case. Of course, you did include sufficient weasel words in your post to be able to worm out of it if you are called on your accusation. Well, I'm calling you out:
> ou are flat-out accusing those who would do A of also doing B. Prove that this is the case. Or are you just going to weasel about it? If you weasel, what does this say about your credibility as a source on what is and is not UNIVERSALLY "ethical"?



Look, everyone that I've this conversation with (face to face, not over the Internet) complains about being pulled over for going barely over the speed limit if they perceive their driving to have been safe. Who knows, maybe it's a California thing (everyone speeds in LA), but there it is. So, those people are basically applying the spirit of the law ("drive safely") and largely ignoring the letter of law ("drive at a ridiculously low speed for no apparent reason"). Maybe that's why I understood the analogy immediately when someone else posted it. The original poster also lives in the LA area. On this thread, everyone I'm disagreeing with is standing behind the letter of the OGL, which is fine. I'm just saying choosing to follow the letter or the spirit of the law depending on which one is most advantageous is something of a double standard. 

As for accusations, I'm not the one using words like weasel and worm in my posts. My "weasel words" as you called them are there to make it clear I'm speculating, nothing more.


----------



## Andy_Collins (Apr 21, 2004)

Although it appears that this thread has devolved into something akin to namecalling, I'll try to clarify some of my earlier thoughts on the matter just in case anyone's still paying attention. Note that these opinions (like any that I share here or elsewhere) are MINE, not those of my employer.

1) I'm the reason that UA is open content. I was the lead designer/developer on the book, and it was my crazy idea way back at the start of the process to make the book open. (Obviously, a lot of other people had to agree--I don't actually have the power to make something that significant happen.) 

2) I think the d20 system license and the OGL are great for the industry. Obviously, publishers have to be careful about why, how, and when they use these tools, but I think overall, it's been beneficial both to consumers and to publishers.

3) I'm fiercely protective of copyright, regardless of who owns it. I believe that it's no more "OK" to illegally distribute a book that's sold 100 million copies for a multibillion dollar transnational megacorporation than to rip off a guy trying to make rent money by self-publishing his fiction. I recognize that not everyone shares this opinion--I've had to come down hard on a player *in my own campaign* who illegally obtained electronic files of books written by people I sit next to.

4) Even after more than 3 years, I'm still trying to wrap my head around how #1, #2, and #3 all work together. Obviously, by making material Open, a publisher is allowing for its redistribution by other parties--that's the whole point, after all. On the other hand, does that mean it's morally OK for me to scan & post on my site the open content of every d20 product that hits the market? There's a slippery slope there, and I think it's fair to say that different people are comfortable standing on different parts of the slope. Personally, I feel most comfortable toward the least-slippery part of the slope; I wouldn't feel good about widely redistributing significant portions of Open Content except as part of a new product designed to add additional value to the entire system (or for my own personal use, but even then I'd only do so from a product I already legally owned). To do otherwise, I believe, is a disservice to those who've put hard work into the creation of that content, and ultimately serves to dissuade companies from continuing the practice.

5) I also recognize that in the end, people are going to do what they want to do. Those who want to download illegal copies of a sourcebook--whether its from Wizards, Malhavoc, Game Mechanics, or anyone else--will find a way to do it. That doesn't make the practice any less abhorrent to me, and I don't think it justifies the stance of "I might as well post it, since they'll get it somewhere else anyway." Just as "I won't get caught" doesn't make stealing OK, neither does "someone else would do it anyway."

I realize that in today's get-everything-for-free-on-the-Internet culture, these opinions probably mark me as the equivalent of a crotchety old geezer.  I guess I'll just have to live with that.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies things a little bit, and that at least one person finds it vaguely informative. If anyone feels like discussing this with me further, I'd encourage you to come over to my boards at www.andycollins.net, where I'm a much more frequent visitor and am thus more likely to see your post.


----------



## nikolai (Apr 21, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> I was thinking of Nikolai when I used the term villified. I must have missed his later post where he said it wasn't personal. However, he had quite a bit to say about Andy. If you want examples, checkout his posts on page 5, toward the top. Bendris also had some stuff to say about Andy's opinion putting him in a bad light- not quite villifaction, so maybe the word was too strong, but Andy did catch some flak.






			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> As noted in my reply to barsoomcore above, it was mainly Nikolai, but you did say Andy's comments put him in a bad light. That's not quite villifying him, but it's more flak than I think he deserves for stating his opinion on the matter.




I think I should probably say something. I posted three posts on page 5 and have linked to them below. If you wish to report any of my posts to the moderators, please do so. Though I feel they've probably already been read and "passed".

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1488314&postcount=102
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1489192&postcount=109
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1489316&postcount=118

At the time there was a pretty contentious debate on the validity of the UA SRD, and Andy's post seemed to have damaged its prospects. I said I felt his opinion was misguided, had done some damage, and that I hoped people would ignore it. I'm glad to see the project is still going ahead. There was nothing aimed at Andy as a person, just at his opinion.

I can't see why you're dragging me into this. What I said isn't relevant to the case you're trying to make. It isn't even me you've been debating the OGL with! If you want quote something specific I said that you think is out of line, you are welcome to. There's not really much I can do with an unsubstantiated accusation that I've been vilifying Andy, other that to say it isn't the case.


----------



## Psion (Apr 21, 2004)

Andy,

I am just the sort of person who would not allow a pirated book at my table. Nor would I share a review copy of a PDF product with my players.

But I (and a lot of people in this thread, from all appearances) am having a real hard time seeing how it is morally wrong to share something when I have been given legal permission to do exactly that.

Yes, I understand there is a fine line between moral and legal. But in this case, the line seems very fine indeed.


----------



## Setanta (Apr 21, 2004)

@Bendris Noulg


> This is the "bad light" that AC put himself in. Also, I was only indicating why he received the flak he did; the statement itself is not flak.



I see the distinction; point taken. 



> However, my own view is that the OGC portion of the work is too often associated with a company's profit line. The "Crunch vs Fluff" issue has led to "Crunch" being the main product of the d20 industry.



I totally agree with you. As I've said, I don't really think that someone posting UA on the Internet would actually hurt WotC's sales. I totally understand my argument is thin- I'm speculating on possible perceptions that people I don't know might have. That's thin- no doubt. However, I think it makes sense, and it's what I believe. 



> If I buy a book today and get uber-inspired and create something from it during the next week, how long must I wait before Distributing my derivitive work with the re-used OGC? What is considered a "fair time"?



A great question. I remember a while back someone wanted to do something like d20exchange, and lots of publishers actually joined the thread and stated displeasure at the thought. People asked them how they felt about other publishers publishing their works, and they all said that was fine with them. So what's the difference? They said that if they publish something, and another publisher decides to reprint it in its entirety, by the time it hits store shelves the original product wouldn't be selling much anyway, so who cares? However, if a product is released, and someone immediately posted it on the web, some publishers felt that might/would hurt their sales. So, we know that most books sell the vast majority of copies they're going to sell in the first three months (many publishers have said things like that). However, some products have longer life spans, like maybe campaign settings that are well supported. Six months certainly seems fair, maybe even three months, with the somewhat longer lasting campaign settings being protected by the fact that they generally have a greater amount of IP than a common crunch book. Would publishers think three or six months is fair? Who knows, but I don't remember ever reading about one that had a complaint about the d20exchange's 6 month policy. 



> I think you missed my point (although that is a fair analysis). I was indicating that you needed to compare the attitude difference between the two posts; basically, I was trying to illustrate why AC was in a "bad light" from his post and why CP wasn't. Chris is both calm, courtious, and, most importantly, entirely factual (and I'm not just saying that because he's the head of one of my Top 5 Pubs) despite it being a topic he was obviously opposed to.



Ah, got it. I did indeed miss your point. 

You posted a long example of how you think publishers could keep a bit more control of how their stuff is used. I think the problem with it is that gamers often don't like to buy one product and find they need another to use it, especially if it's from a another publisher. I've seen lots of people complain about Necromancer putting creatures from Tome of Horrors in their adventures without full stat blocks, and that's all one publisher (BTW, NG has only done this a couple times at most- I certainly don't think it's a big deal, but of course I have ToH). 



> Well, in Chicago (my home town), "California Stops" get you tickets.



Strangely it does here too if a police officer sees it. Of course, that would involve them not doing something more important, like going after real crime. 



> Regardless, I feel like I'm spending too much time transcribing Insanity when I know Breakdaddy can email me that section after a few minutes of scrubbing the PI out of it, so I'm getting distracted easily while trying to do so.



As previously stated, I understand your motivation. I'm setting up a campaign website, and I'd love to put all house rules on there. I'm running it using a third party campaign setting, and I'd love to put PI stuff on my website as well so that players don't have to buy a $35 book. I'm not going to do that, but the point is, I understand why you want this. If people post all of UA on their personal sites for their players' use, would WotC even know? If they don't know, they wouldn't find it threatening to their sales, which is what I'm concerned about. If you were to e-mail breakdaddy and ask him to send you the OCR'd text, WotC would never know, unless you cc them. Again, my only concern here is that WotC is going to think making things OGC hurts their sales. WotC would be aware of UA being posted at EN World, which it seemed like the final outcome of this thread at the beginning (maybe not officially, but if it was linked in an obvious enough place, there's not a huge difference). 



> Yikes... To bad. I'm not going to ask for more details, nor even speculate who, but that is unfortunate.



Truly.



> Third, by now, the d20 logo has become nearly synonous to D&D (indeed, just indicating a product is SRD-derived is enough for an OGL-only product). While the "groundwork" marketing of D&D would be lost, there's little reason to believe that such groundwork couldn't be formed in another manner by another publisher. Cooperative marketing, plugging SRD-derived products in-total would be a big start.



No other publisher has near the marketing budget, distribution, or market penetration of WotC. If D&D stuff stopped being sold at WalMart, Border, Barnes and Noble, etc., that would hurt, as fewer players would have access to even basic stuff (barring the Internet, which some people still don't use for whatever reason, plus they'd be buying sight unseen, which is a bummer). Sure, White Wolf gets onto shelves in those stores, but does any other company (I live in LA, so I don't have a Walmart anywhere nearby, so if they do, I wouldn't know)?


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2004)

I think part of the problem might be with the idea of "adding value". Everyone has a different idea as to what adds value to a product.

Let's take a concrete example: me.

I have created an online Modern SRD. I took WotC's OGC, prettied it up, added massive amounts of hyperlinking and made it available to the world. For free.

From one point of view, I understand why someone might sayI just copied the material and posted it online (let's ignore for the moment that it already was online) without adding any value -- after all, I didn't create any NEW OGC, nor did I add any closed content either. I just took the OGC and reposted it, making it easier for people to get at.

But from another point of view, I think it's clear that someone might think I added HUGE amounts of value -- simply by making it more accessible. By providing the navigation and hyperlinking that I did. I certainly put very large amounts of work into it.

Did I add value or not? Well, that depends on your definition of adding value. But if you decide whether or not this sort of thing is good or bad depending on whether or not value was added in the process, I would sure appreciate a clear definition of what value is and how it gets added.

I am opposed vehemently to theft. I don't download pirated music, I don't use pirated software and I don't download pirated PDFs. I don't share PDFs I've purchased. I don't photocopy books.

I DO post OGC on websites, however. Using the license that allows me to do just that.

I don't see a "slippery slope" here -- to my mind the OGL exists to remove that problem. On this side of the license, you are a Good Person. On the other side, you are an Evil Person. No slope, no subjective judgements, no need for moral quandaries. That's why the license is there. To tell us what is or is not acceptable conduct. I have to admit I'm surprised other people don't see it that way.


----------



## Setanta (Apr 21, 2004)

@barsoomcore


> "Have to" is rather strong language. The only case in which you would "have to" choose is one in which 4E is demonstrably better in objective ways than 3E.



No, just having 4E be different would force a choice- use that, or keep using 3.5 stuff. Certainly there is nothing to would make me "have to" use 4E, but I would have to choose whether I was going to use it or not. As for the HERO system thread, I haven't read it, and I'm spending too much time on this one, so sorry, I guess I'm going to have to stick to my thinking that I would have to choose. 



> That the legal system is problematic, especially in the United States, I would not argue. We don't have the same kind of problem here in Canada because our legal system doesn't make that behaviour worthwhile.Don't blame the lawyers, though. Blame the politicians who create bad laws.



Politicians generally are lawyers here. And, lawyers are more likely to drive new laws than any other non-politician group. At the end of the day though, the legal system that rewards frivolous, "non-ethical" lawuits in this country is the fault of some lawyers, some politicians, and of course the voters who don't push for change. 



> I've said as much. If publishing OGC turns out to be a bad business model, publishers will stop doing it. I don't see how this is bad for the industry. On the contrary, this is good for the industry.



OK. I would rather see publishers keep producing OGC in the hopes that more publishers will actually use other publishers OGC and expand on it. Take mass combat rules. I like Eden's system, but it's not perfect. It would be nice to see another publisher take their system and flesh it out, just as an example. That obviously couldn't happen if Fields of Blood didn't have a lot of OGC (though it's not all OGC, unfortunately). 



> If WotC never publishes another word of OGC, how does that hurt the d20 world?



If they never do another UA, I doubt it would hurt. If they make 4E closed, it would hurt, in my opinion. We seem disagree there; I think we're at a point we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Setanta (Apr 21, 2004)

I think I might have to bow out of this. It's just taking up too much time, and I think I've said just about everything I can say. I'll keep reading it though, so who knows, maybe I'll post again. I must admit the rush of finally (after four years!) hitting one hundred posts has got me all heady. 

Nikolai-
I inferred from your posts that you were villifying Andy. If that wasn't your intent, I'm sorry. 

Barsoomcore-
Regarding post #225, I see your point, but that's maybe not the best example. While that's what S&B says, Chris Pramas specifically said about that product on his boards that he'd appreciate it if people don't just post if for free. 

Bendris Noulg-
On your long post about the environmental stuff, I think we're still miscommunicating a bit. As far as I know, you could easily take the rules part of the environmental subraces thing in UA and just add new environments all day long, along with reprinting everything that's in there. I haven't looked, so if WotC wove some PI into that section, then I see what you mean. However, I don't think anybody here has a problem with you or someone else taking that section, adding to it, then posting. That's the whole point of the OGL. It's the transcribing of 100% of UA's text that has some people a bit testy.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> Certainly there is nothing to would make me "have to" use 4E, but I would have to choose whether I was going to use it or not.



Well, okay. You also have to choose if you're going to use GURPS, or Exalted, or the re-release of TOON. Alright, yes, you have to choose if you're going to use 4E or not. That will be true regardless of whether it is open or closed.


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> I would rather see publishers keep producing OGC in the hopes that more publishers will actually use other publishers OGC and expand on it.
> (snip)
> It would be nice to see another publisher take their system and flesh it out, just as an example. That obviously couldn't happen if Fields of Blood didn't have a lot of OGC (though it's not all OGC, unfortunately).



The best thing for a publisher is to make lots of money. The theory is that the OGL makes that easier in the RPG industry. We don't yet know (because it's far too early to tell) if that's true. If the conditions of the OGL are such that publishers cannot make money on open content, then the OGL is a failure. Not the industry.

We can't expect people to obey conditions that aren't specified anywhere in the hopes that this will make the industry easier to succeed in. If you don't think the kind of behaviour that's been talked about in here is healthy, then there needs to be a license that specifies that behaviour and makes it clear that it is unacceptable. Propose such a condition and let's have at it.

I'm not opposed to the idea of changing the OGL. I'm not saying the conditions it specifies are the correct ones. I'm just saying that the conditions it specifies are in fact the conditions it specifies, so asking people not to abide by them is foolish. To base a business on the hope that people won't obey the terms you ask them to accept is a pretty risky way to run a business.


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> If they make 4E closed, it would hurt, in my opinion. We seem disagree there; I think we're at a point we'll have to agree to disagree.



Since you are the one making the assertion, it falls on you to offer some evidence if you expect me to agree with you. In the absence of any such evidence, you'll have to accept that I disagree.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> Regarding post #225, I see your point, but that's maybe not the best example. While that's what S&B says, Chris Pramas specifically said about that product on his boards that he'd appreciate it if people don't just post if for free.



Exactly why I chose that example. Like I said, "in the absence of any other information", this is what we know.

Now, sure, Mr. Pramas posted on his board a note saying that he'd rather people not do that. That's "other information." I hope he doesn't mind that I posted a bunch of stuff from the book on my campaign site, because it didn't occur to me to search the GR message boards on the chance there might have been a post to that effect. I don't see why it would have occurred to me to do that.

I don't mind that he doesn't want people doing that. I understand -- he wants to sell as many copies of the book as he can, and thinks that people posting material from it will be bad for his sales. He's obviously a smart guy and good businessman. And runs a company that puts out GREAT products that I love and spend lots of money on.

I would hope, however, that he would not call me names because I have done what he gave me permission to do.

And I'm not sure I agree that my posting rules from his book is going to be bad for his sales. I very much doubt that any of my players would ever have purchased the book, anyway. Indeed, I might not have purchased it if I hadn't known I could legally share the rules with my players without making them buy the book themselves. I started my Skull & Bones campaign largely because I knew I could start it up with such a small investment. I haven't started up a Mutants & Masterminds campaign, for example, because the Power Costs are not OGC and so I can't share them. My players will all need to refer to the rulebook in order to create characters, which is a barrier to starting a M&M campaign.

OGC sometimes equals MORE sales. It's not a clear-cut situation at all.


----------



## Samothdm (Apr 21, 2004)

Okay, I just have a few things to say.  I think we're all getting to the point where everyone has (somewhat) clearly stated their position and obviously I believe we are all going to, as Setanta puts it, agree to disagree.

Point #1) I have never disagreed that using/posting OGC is legal, fair, etc.  My only point is that I do see a _*big * _ difference between:

a) Using the OGC from Company A's new assassin class to include an assassin character in my work (even perhaps reprinting all of the class statistics, etc.), and 

b) Transcribing one entire book and posting 100% of that book's OGC for free online within a few weeks/months after that book came out for sale. 

See my post on it here which did not seem to really generate any comments.

Yes, I realize that legally, according to the OGL, there is no difference.  I know I don't have a legal leg to stand on.  But, to me, it just seems a little off.  I'm not making a moral judgment against people who do this.  I'm just trying to understand what the point of doing it is.  It seems to me that the people it benefits the most are people who now would have access to something for free that they probably should have paid for.  

As I've said, if Bendris wants to use Insanity rules in his campaign, and post them on his website because he's using them and wants his players to know what those rules are, and he doesn't expect them to buy the whole book just for those rules, then that seems fair.  However, if he's going to say, "We're using all of the variant rules from UA" then I think he should politely ask his players to buy the book, or maybe at least one they can share, rather than just posting the whole thing for free on his site.

And, no, I'm not picking on Bendris.  He seems to be very level-headed.  It's just the first name that came to mine since he's been very vocal on this thread.

2) I've seen several posts here about how it doesn't matter if WotC makes 4E closed or not, because the OGL can't be revoked and the current version of the d20 rules (3.5) will continue forward, with or without WotC.

I really do see this as short-sited.  Let's think for a minute about D&D prior to 3.0E.  How many of you were playing before then?  I mean really playing regularly, not just "keeping up on the rules" by buying a new Player's Handbook?

WotC comes out with 3.0E, does a big marketing push, and brings a lot of new players into the game.  My entire game group that I DM, with maybe one or two exceptions, are all newbies who had never touched an RPG prior to 3rd Edition.  They were exposed to the marketing messages that WotC did and came into the game.  They don't know from "D20", "D&D", "OGL" or "SRD".  They play, in their minds, "D&D".  I imagine that a lot of other groups have a similar situation.

When WotC makes a new 4th Edition, they will do some sort of marketing campaign to try to capture new, first-time players to the game, as well as trying to convert current players to the new edition.  _*If*_ 4E is closed, then brand new players to the game will probably never be exposed to the concept of an "OGL" and will not be putting their dollars into that community of products.  Additionally, there will be some current players of 3.5E who will convert to 4.0 and then have to decide if they will continue supporting 3.5E publishers and then spend the time to convert those materials to their new 4E games.  

This means that, over a relatively short amount of time, the consumer base for 3.5E will dwindle to the point that I think it would be very difficult to support the current product output being made by 3rd party publishers.  

Yes, the OGL will not "go away" if 4E is closed.  Yes, 3rd party publishers can continue to produce product geared to the OGL 3.5E.  But, will there be a big enough consumer base to support them?  

Will they have the marketing clout to get better distribution outside of LGS's, which are relatively few and far between?  When was the last time you saw a non-WotC or non-White Wolf RPG in your local Border's or Wal-Mart?  That's a rhetorical question so no need to site your individual one-off examples.  The point is, over 90% of 3rd party publishers are not carried in those types of outlets.

Will 3rd party publishers be able to work together to come up with some sort of broad marketing campaign to bring new blood into "their" version of the game?  I'm not sure they would.  I don't imagine most of these companies have a lot of extra dollars around to market their stuff outside of the community of already-existing players.  

And, since there will be no more "official" guidelines, how does that help your average consumer who decides to stick with 3.5E? We've already seen people doing things like getting rid of HP for VP/WP and getting rid of AC in favor of their own system.  While I like those kinds of ideas, I think that after a while, individual companies would try to stake a claim by making these types of variants their "norm", making the choices that much more limited for someone who wants to play a "traditional" 3.5E game and doesn't want to spend a lot of time converting material.

Just some (rather long) thoughts.


----------



## Setanta (Apr 21, 2004)

I know I said I was probably going to bow out, but I failed my Will save.



> Since you are the one making the assertion, it falls on you to offer some evidence if you expect me to agree with you. In the absence of any such evidence, you'll have to accept that I disagree.



First, I don't expect you to agree with me. Second, I don't think we can come up with hard, factual evidence without things like sales numbers for something that doesn't even exist yet, and won't be available to us if and when 4E does exist. Anyway, I'll direct you to Monte Cook, who talked about how he saw 3.0 and 3.5 splitting the D20 market back when 3.5 came out. Monte knows a lot more about this business than I do. If he thinks 3.5 was going to split the market and hurt all publishers (except maybe WotC, I don't remember if they were included in his point), it would seem a closed 4E would be worse, partly for reasons SamothDM covers in his most recent post (new players, only some converted 3.5 players, blah blah blah, it was a long post (j/k samothDM). 

Also, I've never taken debate class or whatever, but I'm just wondering. Aren't you making an assertion that a closed 4E WOULDN'T hurt the industry? Don't you need to provide evidence? I'm just asking, as I'm not clear on how my assertion is so different from yours, from a rules-of-debate standpoint.  



> I don't mind that he doesn't want people doing that. I understand -- he wants to sell as many copies of the book as he can, and thinks that people posting material from it will be bad for his sales.



I suspect Chris doesn't mind you posting stuff for your players. I think he was just saying he'd appreciate it if people don't give away his game for free, as in "Hey everyone, I OCR'd S&B, download it for free here (URL)"


----------



## Maggan (Apr 21, 2004)

*Thank you for clarifying*



			
				Andy_Collins said:
			
		

> 3) I'm fiercely protective of copyright, regardless of who owns it. I believe that it's no more "OK" to illegally distribute a book that's sold 100 million copies for a multibillion dollar transnational megacorporation than to rip off a guy trying to make rent money by self-publishing his fiction. I recognize that not everyone shares this opinion--I've had to come down hard on a player *in my own campaign* who illegally obtained electronic files of books written by people I sit next to.
> 
> 5) I also recognize that in the end, people are going to do what they want to do. Those who want to download illegal copies of a sourcebook--whether its from Wizards, Malhavoc, Game Mechanics, or anyone else--will find a way to do it. That doesn't make the practice any less abhorrent to me, and I don't think it justifies the stance of "I might as well post it, since they'll get it somewhere else anyway." Just as "I won't get caught" doesn't make stealing OK, neither does "someone else would do it anyway."
> 
> I realize that in today's get-everything-for-free-on-the-Internet culture, these opinions probably mark me as the equivalent of a crotchety old geezer.  I guess I'll just have to live with that.




Thank you for weighing in and clarifying you initial statement. Also, thank you for the work put into D&D3.5 and UA, and for working to make UA OGC.

I wouldn't worry too much about being a crotchety old geezer. Most of us here on EN World are against cyberpirating and the posting and downloading of pirated works. So we are all crotchety old geezers here.

But that is a different discussion, as far as I am concerned, and not very much related to what we are talking about, i.e. the lawful distribution of OGC and its possible implications on the industry.

Cheers!

Maggan


----------



## kenjib (Apr 21, 2004)

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the clarification and I appreciate the time you've taken to respond.  I see your point, but I think that in truth you don't really like the OGL.  You prefer some other kind of license arrangement that doesn't currently exist and you are hoping people will adhere to that even while you use the OGL.

I understand that this is just your personal opinion, but let's say that it was the official WotC stance (and I am not claiming that it is), just to see where this leads.

1.  WotC releases a book that clearly states that I am free to copy and redistribute most of it, and even profit from doing so if I want to.
2.  I buy the book, and part of my consideration for doing so is this statement.
3.  I copy and redistribute most of the book just like WotC says I can, by accepting WotC's licensing agreement as stated in the book.
4.  WotC tells me that I am acting immorally and suggests that while I don't have to legally, I should voluntarily cease and desist on moral grounds.

This is a clear case of bait and switch and in my opinion it would be clearly unethical for WotC to take this position.  If WotC doesn't like the terms of the OGL then they should either work on a revised license or be more conservative in their declarations of open content.  I mean...they created the license in the first place, right?


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 21, 2004)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Thank you for weighing in and clarifying you initial statement. Also, thank you for the work put into D&D3.5 and UA, and for working to make UA OGC.
> 
> I wouldn't worry too much about being a crotchety old geezer. Most of us here on EN World are against cyberpirating and the posting and downloading of pirated works. So we are all crotchety old geezers here.
> 
> But that is a different discussion, as far as I am concerned, and not very much related to what we are talking about, i.e. the lawful distribution of OGC and its possible implications on the industry.



I agree...  The topic of piracy does pop up in these discussions on occassion, and the subject is bound to derail the actual discussion.

I think we can all agree that the sort of people that would download a scanned copy of UA (being a digital reproduction of the _entire_ UA, covers, PI, and all) will do so _regardless_ of the existance of a legal OGL-compliant document.

To which...  I've made four replies for this thread during the last 8 hours and lost _each_ of them from the boards being switched off or just screwing up.  As such, I'm ready to bow out (although I'll probably keep reading, so that's no assurance that I'm not going to reply again).  As such, I'm re-posting the parts of UA I intend to use in my own material and thus _will_ be transcribing for reasons of _neccessity_:

Environmental Races
Alternate Classes
Prestige Classes
Generic Classes
Complex Skill Checks
Character Background
Action Points
Metamagic Components
Legendary Weapons
Incantations
Reputation
Honor
Taint
Sanity

I'm about half-done with Sanity and I have Metamagic Components next in line (I was about to develop Power Components, so I'm going to work them up together).  If anyone else has something on this list that they are transcribing (for whatever reason), contact me at jdomsalla@swfla.rr.com so we can coordinate efforts and save each other some work.

Otherwise, thanks for the debate to everyone that was civil, or remained civil enough to prevent things from getting too hot (and to the mods for the occassional "Shhh..." when it was needed).

This crotchety old geezer has got a book to write...  Later.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> Aren't you making an assertion that a closed 4E WOULDN'T hurt the industry? Don't you need to provide evidence? I'm just asking, as I'm not clear on how my assertion is so different from yours, from a rules-of-debate standpoint.



I'm not making an assertion. I'm saying I don't see any reason to agree with yours. You say a closed 4E will hurt the industry -- and this is the key point -- MORE than an open 4E will. Your evidence:


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> I'll direct you to Monte Cook, who talked about how he saw 3.0 and 3.5 splitting the D20 market back when 3.5 came out. Monte knows a lot more about this business than I do. If he thinks 3.5 was going to split the market and hurt all publishers (except maybe WotC, I don't remember if they were included in his point), it would seem a closed 4E would be worse



Since 3.5 was open when it came out (or shortly thereafter), what you need to do is provide a reason for me to think that this effect would be worsened because 4E were closed. That a new edition hurts the industry is a different question.


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> I suspect Chris doesn't mind you posting stuff for your players.



That's nice. You can suspect all you like. If your suspicions are wrong, what then?

Well, as it turns out, nothing, because your suspicions don't enter into this question. And neither do Chris Pramas' minding

This is why we have laws -- so that I don't have to rely on  your suspicions. And THAT'S the crux of what I've been saying. Your comment there just proves my point -- if I have to rely on your suspicions to guide me in what right or wrong, why do we have the license anyway? If we have the license, why should I pay any attention to your suspicions?

Use the OGL or not. If you use it, use it in full acceptance -- no, in full SUPPORT of its terms. Design your business AROUND it, not in SPITE of it. Don't hope that its terms won't be respected. To do otherwise is foolishness.


----------



## Setanta (Apr 21, 2004)

> Since 3.5 was open when it came out (or shortly thereafter), what you need to do is provide a reason for me to think that this effect would be worsened because 4E were closed. That a new edition hurts the industry is a different question.



Monte was saying that the split in player base between 3.0 and 3.5 would hurt the industry. The split would be greater if 4E were closed, because its rules presumably wouldn't be compatable with 3.x (or at least less compatable than 3.5 is with 3.0). I think we can agree that 3.5 has caused a split; there are plenty of threads here and on other boards to that effect. If 4E came out closed there would be people who wouldn't move because it's too soon, they don't like the changes, they don't want to buy the books, and all the other reasons some people haven't switched to 3.5. Throw in the fact that some people would refuse to support a closed 4E simply because it's closed. That right there would make it a bigger split than 3.5 caused. Now, the split would also have a larger effect on publishers. With 3.5, really, publishers can make 3.5 stuff, and the people still using 3.0 have at most a very small amount of conversion work to do. If 4E is closed, they'll have three choices:

1- Only address the part of the market still playing 3.x.
2- Get a license to produce 4E stuff, and ignore the 3.x players
3- Get a license and dual-stat, which annoys lots of people who don't like paying for stats they won't use. 

I'm sure you can agree that all three are bad.



> Use the OGL or not. If you use it, use it in full acceptance -- no, in full SUPPORT of its terms. Design your business AROUND it, not in SPITE of it. Don't hope that its terms won't be respected. To do otherwise is foolishness.



If you made a D20 product, and it was your whole source of income, would you be happy about people OCRing the whole thing on day one of its release and posting it on the web? Sure, you'd go into the whole thing knowing that such an event was a possibility, but still, wouldn't you rather they at least wait a while, a month or two at least? Or would you have released it as crippled OGC, or possibly avoided the need to use much OGC by not bothering with a hugh-crunch content book? What if crunch was the only thing you felt you could contribute that would sell?


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 22, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> If 4E is closed, (publishers will) have three choices:
> 
> 1- Only address the part of the market still playing 3.x.
> 2- Get a license to produce 4E stuff, and ignore the 3.x players
> ...



What I don't see is how 4E closedness worsens the situation. All of these situations exist if 4E is open right? They can either continue to produce 3E, use whatever license is available for 4E or dual-stat.

Whether or not they have to pay for the 4E license is beside the point.


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> If you made a D20 product, and it was your whole source of income, would you be happy about people OCRing the whole thing on day one of its release and posting it on the web? Sure, you'd go into the whole thing knowing that such an event was a possibility, but still, wouldn't you rather they at least wait a while, a month or two at least? Or would you have released it as crippled OGC, or possibly avoided the need to use much OGC by not bothering with a hugh-crunch content book? What if crunch was the only thing you felt you could contribute that would sell?



If I felt like the only thing I had to contribute was something that people wouldn't bother paying for, I'd be very cautious about my ability to succeed in any market.

Of course I would rather people give me money, even for that which I offer for free. Sure I would. I'd rather you paid me to post on ENWorld. But I'm not going to manage a business on the hope that you will.

There's two possible things you might be arguing with this approach, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

On the one hand, publishers will make more money if people don't release competing products. I agree.

On the other hand, it's not healthy for the industry for peole to release OGC created by others. I don't agree.

Here's a reason -- how do we measure "health of the industry"? Perhaps Health could be measured by "publishers putting out exceptional books of very high editorial and production quality". Note that neither of those qualities have much to do with OGC -- editorial quality affects all the content of the book, not just the OGC, and production quality has nothing to do with OGC at all. So one possible effect of OGC redistribution is that publishers focus on producing beautiful books full of great writing, rather than coming up with half-a-dozen crummy prestige classes to fill their pages. I call that healthy. Maybe redistribution of OGC will lead product differentiation by these qualities rather than game rules.

There's lots of way to define Healthy. Just because some publishers are currently operating with unviable business models does not mean that they are pointing the way the industry will go.


----------



## jgbrowning (Apr 22, 2004)

I think what we're basically talking about is courtesy-- not morality, ethics, or legality. Acceptable behavior isn't always courteous. One can behave morally and ethically and still be discourteous. There's nothing "wrong" with being discourteous --one can't please everyone all the time-- as courtesy is something beyond the expected neutral behavior. It also varies a lot from person to person.

Someone can put almost all of UA up on a website the day after it's released. This is a GOOD thing. This is what the OGL is for. However, it's discourteous to the publisher to do it so quickly because it may hurt sales and therefore, the publisher's continued support of that which allows the website to put up UA OGC.

It's a circle of courtesy by all involved that hopefully increases both the publisher's and user's enjoyment of the game through the continued creation, use, and support of OGC. Through discourtesy, the creator of the website has the abilty to hurt the publisher of a product through moral, ethical, and legally acceptable actions. 

Why do I think it's discourteous? Because the website doesn't have to put the OGC material up in a *publically distributed manner en toto right after release.* If the website needs the OGC for a campaign (or any other time-sensitive reason) there are many ways to specifically distribute this OGC to those who need the material, and *not to everyone in general.* This obviously makes some dificulties for the website, but at the same time, it's more courteous to the publisher, without which, after all, there wouldn't be the OGC to begin with. The website extends some courtesy to the publisher in this manner.

Publishers would like others to consider their well being when distributing OGC. This isn't a requirement, nor even an expectation (they agreed to the OGL after all), and neither is any behavior acceptable under the OGL immoral or unethical. Considering others in one's decision, however, is being courteous.

IMHO.  

joe b.


----------



## Setanta (Apr 22, 2004)

> What I don't see is how 4E closedness worsens the situation. All of these situations exist if 4E is open right? They can either continue to produce 3E, use whatever license is available for 4E or dual-stat.



4E being closed worsens the situation because it would be more difficult for companies to produce compatable material. If some companies (even if it's just WotC) are producing 4E stuff, and others (maybe everyone but WotC) are making 3.5 stuff, we, the consumers, lose. I'm going to guess you don't see it that way, since from your previous comments I'm thinking you wouldn't feel a need to choose, but I would feel a need to choose. 



> If I felt like the only thing I had to contribute was something that people wouldn't bother paying for, I'd be very cautious about my ability to succeed in any market.



Fair enough, but it seems you're assuming that people wouldn't bother paying you for it just because they aren't legally required to. 



> Of course I would rather people give me money, even for that which I offer for free. Sure I would. I'd rather you paid me to post on ENWorld. But I'm not going to manage a business on the hope that you will.



Well, I know if I put out an OGC book (OGC because it's all crunch), I would hope people would pay me for my work (assuming I was actually charging for it). Since I would hope people would pay me, I'll certainly pay them. 



> There's two possible things you might be arguing with this approach, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say.



I wasn't actually arguing anything. Just asking. I just wanted to see how you'd respond. 



> On the other hand, it's not healthy for the industry for peole to release OGC created by others. I don't agree.



See, I think it *is* healthy for the people to release OGC created by others. I just see a difference between someone taking some OGC from one book, adding to it (even if it's just indexing the book with hyperlinks) and releasing it, and someone taking 100% of the text of a product and posting it for anyone to download for free. I pretty much agree with samothdm here. I think Bendris Noulg posting sections of UA on his website for his players is great. At some point though, rather than posting all of it, I think it becomes more fair to the publisher to just ask players to buy the book if they want to use the rules. There's definitely a lot of gray area there- no doubt.


----------



## Setanta (Apr 22, 2004)

Joe B-

You said it so much better than I have been trying to. Thanks for chiming in. That's the essence of my point, but you hit it much more clearly than I was able to.


----------



## jgbrowning (Apr 22, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> Joe B-
> 
> You said it so much better than I have been trying to. Thanks for chiming in. That's the essence of my point, but you hit it much more clearly than I was able to.




I do think that it's very important to remember that if someone were to put out the entirety of a work right after it is released, that person is completely and utterly within their rights and are, at least in my opinion, behaving appropriately as long as they are using the OGL according to law. I don't think anyone should be name-called or be accused of acting unethically or imorally by doing so.

I'd like to think that an e-mail exchange would convince that person to take down the OGC for a brief while so as to not hurt the publisher during the rather short sales cycle of d20 products. I think almost everyone is reasonable and understands the situation of both publisher and customer.

So far, everyone has acted in such a manner. Which actually makes me a bit proud about the customers in general. Gamers generally want game companies to do well. Being courteous helps publishers keep on producing OGC material as opposed to culling back and trying to protect their investments. Which I view as the publisher being courteous back to the gamer, because anything beyond the required amount of OGC is being courteous. Really, we're all in the same boat together, and compromise and courtesy within legal rights benefits everyone.

joe b.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 22, 2004)

frugal said:
			
		

> I am really not sure how you guys have managed to come up with this many posts discussing what is in effect a non issue . Allow me to explain:
> 
> 1 - When WoTC released the 3 core rules books, all 3 books were (and still are) completely closed content. This allowed WoTC to be the sole seller of 3E products.
> 
> ...



Unchallenged.




			
				frugal said:
			
		

> 3 - Some publishers wanted to write completely closed systems (I believe Spycraft is non-OGL), so they licensed the closed D20 system directly from WoTC



*Correction:* _Spycraft_ is not a *completely* closed system. At the time of the book's release, only one game content remained closed and are used with permission by Wizards of the Coast: VP/WP health system. But for the most part, mainly the ruleset, _Spycraft_ is a third-party _d20_ product in compliance with the OGL.




			
				frugal said:
			
		

> 4 - WoTC produced the 3 core 3.5E rule books, again all 3 were completely closed content.
> 
> 5 - A while after the release of the closed content WoTC released an OGL 3.5 SRD (The timeframe of 2 months springs to mind).
> 
> 5a - Many different formatted versions appear on web site as html, doc, pdf etc.



Unchallenged.




			
				frugal said:
			
		

> 6 - WoTC releases Unearthed Arcana as OGL and all hell breaks loose.
> 
> *Hypothosis:* WoTC deliberatly released Unearthed Arcana under the OGL with full knowledge of the consequences.
> 
> *Evidence:* In the past WoTC have released a closed content version first and then 2 months later released an OGL version. If they did not want to have people transcribe and redistribute the product then they would have released it as closed content and then released an open version in a few months time.



Well, that's not always the case, but usually the OGC material derived from the copyrighted material soon followed and entered into the SRD.




			
				frugal said:
			
		

> If a publisher wants to retain complete control over their product for a fixed period of time before opening it up then they should release the hardcopy as closed content and then release an SRD as open content later on.
> 
> *Personal Opinion: * Personally I would rather see publishers release a closed content book and then after a time allow me to download the open version than release the book as open and then complain when people treat it as open.



Unfortunately, to make such a copyrighted product while utilizing the _d20_ ruleset without the OGL would require a separate agreement with Wizards of the Coast, unless the publisher wishes to introduce a whole new ruleset.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 22, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, to make such a copyrighted product while utilizing the _d20_ ruleset without the OGL would require a separate agreement with Wizards of the Coast, unless the publisher wishes to introduce a whole new ruleset.



Actually, I did have a line of thought once that the whole Open/Closed/PI issue was just backwards.  I think (opinion, pipe-dream, whatever...) that it would have been better if the product itself was declared untouchable copyrighted material but the contributor had a period of time (3-6 months) to submit a txt format file (minimum) of the OGC within the product to some form of Open Gaming "depository".  Fail to submit that file, and the book goes OGC in-total.

_That_ would have solved a lot of issues in Open Gaming.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 22, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Actually, I did have a line of thought once that the whole Open/Closed/PI issue was just backwards.  I think (opinion, pipe-dream, whatever...) that it would have been better if the product itself was declared untouchable copyrighted material but the contributor had a period of time (3-6 months) to submit a txt format file (minimum) of the OGC within the product to some form of Open Gaming "depository".  Fail to submit that file, and the book goes OGC in-total.
> 
> _That_ would have solved a lot of issues in Open Gaming.



It would, but it would also be costly for the publisher.  

As I said, to make a _d20_ product a copyrighted material that is derived from the _D&D_ core rulebooks rather than from the SRD would require you negotiating an exclusive agreement with WotC, and one would expect there may be royalty fees involved.

I think that if the publisher know all the risks, and still decide to utilize the open rules system (which the SRD provides) which is under the OGL, then he has to accept the risks, or have already done so, for his business.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 22, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> I think Bendris Noulg posting sections of UA on his website for his players is great. At some point though, rather than posting all of it, I think it becomes more fair to the publisher to just ask players to buy the book if they want to use the rules.



To comment on this, the idea for Aedon is to have complete rulebooks.  That is, only the 3-Ring binders containing the Aedon Rules will, in the end, be all that we will require at the table.  (Note that Aedon does not carry the d20 logo; Character Creation Rules are included.)

My players do, on occassion, buy books, but often those books are representative of themes they want to explore as players with PCs and are few and far between; the bulk of purchases, as world-maker, falls on me (except for one other member that GMs an _Oathbound_ game, but 90% of her purchases are strictly Bastion Press with the occassional dip into Fantasy Flight and Privateer, which has blended well into a very unusual and unique game I must say...  Story Hour recently started at Valar.).


----------



## kenjib (Apr 22, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Actually, I did have a line of thought once that the whole Open/Closed/PI issue was just backwards.  I think (opinion, pipe-dream, whatever...) that it would have been better if the product itself was declared untouchable copyrighted material but the contributor had a period of time (3-6 months) to submit a txt format file (minimum) of the OGC within the product to some form of Open Gaming "depository".  Fail to submit that file, and the book goes OGC in-total.
> 
> _That_ would have solved a lot of issues in Open Gaming.




I think that's a really great idea and I would like to see WotC consider something like this for 4e.  It would remove all of the ambiguity and allow people to easily re-distribute any and all OGC available to them.


----------



## frugal (Apr 22, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I think part of the problem might be with the idea of "adding value". Everyone has a different idea as to what adds value to a product.
> 
> Let's take a concrete example: me.
> 
> ...




I agree wholeheartedly. I am currently building a OpenOffice / PDF document of the whole of the SRD and I will probably add other OGL content as I get it. 

Now I own the PBH, DMG, MM, ELH, origial 3.0 psionics and I have all of them at the table so why do I want to spend about 50 hours reformatting, indexing and linknig all of these documents?  Because searching through an PDF/DOC/HTML file is an order of magnitude quicker than trying to find the rule in just the 3 core books.

WoTC did a wonderful job with the rules, art and cover design. But they did a lousy job with the contents, index and layout. I would refuse to buy a technical book for my job that only had a 2 page index for a 200 page book (and have done in the past)...


----------



## frugal (Apr 22, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *Correction:* _Spycraft_ is not a *completely* closed system. At the time of the book's release, only one game content remained closed and are used with permission by Wizards of the Coast: VP/WP health system. But for the most part, mainly the ruleset, _Spycraft_ is a third-party _d20_ product in compliance with the OGL.




I stand corrected. I have never actually seen Spycraft, my only exposure was on the PCGen mailing list when people asking for Spycraft datasets were told they it contained closed content and was therefore unavailable. I inferred (incorrectly) from those statements that Spycraft had licensed the D20 rules from WotC rather than used mostly OGL rules with one or two closed content rules licensed in a different way.



> Unfortunately, to make such a copyrighted product while utilizing the _d20_ ruleset without the OGL would require a separate agreement with Wizards of the Coast, unless the publisher wishes to introduce a whole new ruleset.




This is the point I was trying to make: If publishers do not want their rules open for a period of time then they have the option of licensing the WotC closed content.

Now I know that this will make considerably more legal work for both parties and it will almost certainly mean that small publishers are unable to go down this route unless WotC are generous and easy going with their licensing, but never the less, it is a possible path for publishers to take.


----------



## jessemock (Apr 22, 2004)

Andy_Collins said:
			
		

> Speaking as one of the authors of Unearthed Arcana, it seems to me a little petty to simply scan/retype the entire product and make it available for free to anyone who wants it.




I like the use of 'petty' here:  it could only indicate "mean" or "narrow-minded" or "spiteful"--as if the distribution of the material could only take place as a result a desire either to harm someone or to adhere strictly to the letter of the law, for its own sake.

Surely, 'petty' couldn't mean "insignificant".




> We made UA open content to encourage publishers to try out some new rules in their products, as well as to recognize some exciting concepts pioneered by other companies,




'Recognise' is interesting in this context, because it doesn't mean "acknowledge as an achievement", but rather "take and sell for our own profit".

More neat rhetoric from the people who 'unlock wellsprings'.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 23, 2004)

jessemock said:
			
		

> 'Recognise' is interesting in this context, because it doesn't mean "acknowledge as an achievement", but rather "take and sell for our own profit".



You say that as if it's a bad thing.  

All I know is that some of the mechanics from third-party souces are the more talked-about by fans, mostly praises. I don't know if they're considered achievements or innovations for the _d20_ open rules system, but they're definitely fan favorites.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 23, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> If some companies (even if it's just WotC) are producing 4E stuff, and others (maybe everyone but WotC) are making 3.5 stuff, we, the consumers, lose.



Again, this condition will be true regardless of how 4E is licensed. Currently 3E is licensed via the OGL, which makes things difficult to some degree -- as this thread attests. There's nothing to suggest that the licensing chosen for 4E -- whatever it will be -- will make things MORE difficult. Indeed, a license that (for example) requires payment or WotC approval might improve things. Nobody knows, at this stage.


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but it seems you're assuming that people wouldn't bother paying you for it just because they aren't legally required to.
> 
> Well, I know if I put out an OGC book (OGC because it's all crunch), I would hope people would pay me for my work (assuming I was actually charging for it). Since I would hope people would pay me, I'll certainly pay them.



Assumptions are a bad way to plan for the future. If your business plan includes statements like, "We hope people will pay us because they're nice," you should accept that your business model is high risk.

And high risk business models rarely produce healthy industries. I'd much rather see the RPG industry based on lower-risk, more sustainable business models. I think that releasing OGC can produce such models -- but publishers have to consider how the OGL will affect their business. THAT will produce a healthy industry.


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> At some point though, rather than posting all of it, I think it becomes more fair to the publisher to just ask players to buy the book if they want to use the rules. There's definitely a lot of gray area there- no doubt.



Yeah, that's the problem. And I think something that's happening here is that I'm arguing from the "principle" point of view, looking to derive specific cases from that, whereas you're starting with a specific case and building a principle upon that.

That is, I'm saying, "It's always okay to post OGC," and thereby concluding that any instance of posting OGC is good, while you're saying, "This kind of posting is bad," and thereby concluding that it's not always okay. If you see what I mean.

The fact that we both agree whole-heartedly with everything Joe B. is saying suggests to me maybe our positions aren't as far apart as the number of posts in this thread indicates.


----------



## Fester (Apr 23, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> ... blah ...
> 
> all the debate anybody tells me won't change that thought.




Then why are you here?  You have no interest in debate and combined with your stamping of feet and yelling "You're a jerk!" really doesn't lead me to give anything you say much credence.  I've always found that when people get abusive, it's because their argument has unravelled, but they just don't want have the wit to know it or the honesty to admit it.




> I think there are good uses and bad uses of OGL out there.  Each one I judge based on how exploitive it is.  To me, If it feels like you are doing something wrong, it probably is wrong.  That's how everybody should behave.




So, everybody should behave like you?  And if they don't, they're jerks?  Right.  I think you must have been on your own for too long.  Go out, get some friends, talk to people.  You may just realise then that debate and conversation is a two way thing and that, in fact, very few (if any) are likely to regard your opinion as sacrosanct.  Of course, you'll need to retract your head from the bucket of sand it's in.



> Some of us feel that the creation of an SRD for Unearthed Arcana for free on the Internet violates a trust.  We discourage people from doing that, and debate why.  And we realize our actions have consequences, and the activities of a few may discourage the good elements of OGL.




Us? We? Our?  Are you a Mason?



> And before anybody thinks I am attacking anybody, I am attacking the attitude, not an individual.  I have not attacked others, but I see people ready to jump on both myself and Andy Collins for daring to speak out about this, questioning our motives.  I can't help it if some of the things we say make people feel guilty about their actions.




I just hate this pompous, pretentious attitude.  You slag everybody off, call us jerks (or _sleazy_), and then have the audacity to say you're not attacking anybody.  Now, you might not agree with what people have to say, but if that is the best rebuttal you can come up with - ie "you're a jerk and I'm not playing with you anymore - then I can say nothing more than: JERK!

Apologies (to everyone else) for my rant - I know, I know, I'll probably get told off. But it just _had_ to come out


----------



## Setanta (Apr 24, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's the problem. And I think something that's happening here is that I'm arguing from the "principle" point of view, looking to derive specific cases from that, whereas you're starting with a specific case and building a principle upon that.
> 
> That is, I'm saying, "It's always okay to post OGC," and thereby concluding that any instance of posting OGC is good, while you're saying, "This kind of posting is bad," and thereby concluding that it's not always okay. If you see what I mean.



Indeed, I do see what you mean. 



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> The fact that we both agree whole-heartedly with everything Joe B. is saying suggests to me maybe our positions aren't as far apart as the number of posts in this thread indicates.



Absolutely. I've suspected that for a while, at least since you talked about S&B and how Chris P posted that he'd appreciate it if people didn't just post and give away the whole thing. I inferred that you sympathized with his situation. I've just done a bad job of getting across a point that Joe B nailed in a couple paragraphs. I guess that's why he writes for a living, and I do what I do (which doesn't involve that kind of writing).


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 24, 2004)

Beautifully, done, Andy.  While I'm a (very) small publisher, I'll chip in my 2 cents here, too... for sake of clarity, I'll respond to point 3 first, followed by point 2, for reasons that will shortly be clear...



			
				Andy Collins said:
			
		

> 3) I'm fiercely protective of copyright, regardless of who owns it. I believe that it's no more "OK" to illegally distribute a book that's sold 100 million copies for a multibillion dollar transnational megacorporation than to rip off a guy trying to make rent money by self-publishing his fiction. I recognize that not everyone shares this opinion--I've had to come down hard on a player *in my own campaign* who illegally obtained electronic files of books written by people I sit next to.




Here's where I'm a little less, um, zealous, I guess.  Sir Thomas Babington MacAuley put it better in 1842 than I could today, so I'll just use his words... it's a long quote but beautifully explains the need for, and pros and cons of, copyright.  And I doubt our politicians today even come close to his level of insight...



> It is then on men whose profession is literature, and whose private means are not ample, that you must rely for a supply of valuable books. Such men must be remunerated for their literary labour. And there are only two ways in which they can be remunerated. One of those ways is patronage; the other is copyright.
> ...
> I can conceive no system more fatal to the integrity and independence of literary men than one under which they should be taught to look for their daily bread to the favour of ministers and nobles. {Sigil's Note: i.e,. "patronage"}
> ...
> ...



Personally, however, I think this "tax" has grown to ridiculous proportions - to the point where it is no longer fair payment for services rendered, but has essentially reached the point of "slavery to copyright holders" since I do not expect to see any more work that is currently under copyright pass into the public domain in my lifetime, nor in the lifetimes of my children, nor in the lifetimes of my great great great great grandchildren.  Since copyright has become in effect perpetual, I am no longer all for it.  Simply put, I am for copyright in principle, but simply *not in the form it currently takes.*

At the end of the day, I am all for defending copyrighted works - vehemently - for a limited amount of time.  I *do* respect the amount of work that goes into creating them.  I feel that copyright should be limited to the term for which an item is commercially viable, perhaps double that.  I have HUGE problems with people who "sit" on copyrighted work on the odd chance that "someone, somewhere, somehow might turn a profit on this and it won't be me!"  As far as I'm concerned, if you're not actively involved in trying to make money from a work, it is no longer deserving of copyright.

Thus, I will defend UA's copyright today - and vehemently so.  It's still on shelves.  It might even gather enough momentum for another print run.  I'll probably defend it 2 years from now.  Given the short shelf life of most RPG books, I'm NOT sure I would defend it 5 years from now.  For example, I am much less enthusiastic about defending the copyright of, say, a book that has been out of print for 50 years and looks never to be printed again due to lack of interest than I am about defending the copyright of today's bestseller.



			
				Andy_Collins said:
			
		

> 2) I think the d20 system license and the OGL are great for the industry. Obviously, publishers have to be careful about why, how, and when they use these tools, but I think overall, it's been beneficial both to consumers and to publishers.



I think the OGL, independent of the d20 license, is great for the industry, simply because it allows publishers to sidestep the "undesirable effects" of copyright to some degree.  I firmly believe the OGL - and the GPL - would not have even needed to be conceived were it not for current draconian copyright laws - there would simply be more fresh, relevant information free of the "copyright tax."  



> 4) Even after more than 3 years, I'm still trying to wrap my head around how #1, #2, and #3 all work together.



Here's how I think things work together... and this opinion is my own.  I quote here Thomas Jefferson (emphasis mine):


> If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. *He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine*; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. *That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point*, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.



Copyright, of course, is the antithesis of what Jefferson describes above - it is artificially imposing a paucity upon that which in its natural state may enrich all - for the sole enrichment of one. The OGL and GPL were established because people who owned the copyright to something substantial, useful, and important within their field of endeavor felt - perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly (time will tell) - that in their specific field of endeavor, providing the ability for "multiple people to be able to independently build" on to the existing body of work quickly, simply, and immediately - without the onerous copyright "tax" (including tracking down the right person to ask permission) was more important, efficient, desirous, economically viable, you name your favorite reason, than was "collecting the copyright tax" for themselves.  The OGL and GPL are, when you get right down to it, ways of going back to a Jeffersonian way of thinking of IP that uses existing copyright law to "force" Jefferson's views on those who wish to use the valuable copyrighted material that the authors of the OGL/GPL wanted to make available, but wanted to make sure that they too could reap the benefits of derivative works.



> Obviously, by making material Open, a publisher is allowing for its redistribution by other parties--that's the whole point, after all. On the other hand, does that mean it's morally OK for me to scan & post on my site the open content of every d20 product that hits the market? There's a slippery slope there, and I think it's fair to say that different people are comfortable standing on different parts of the slope.



I don't agree.  I feel that the point of the OGL and GPL is, in essence, to return to a time and place where ideas can be freely exchanged, examined, sorted, posted, discussed, et al -- without worrying about the copyright tax.  This discussion, exchange, examination, et al is NOT the END to which those who created the OGL and GPL and the substantial "initial bodies of content" were working... rather it is the MEANS of accomplishing those goals.  

Ryan Dancey, IIRC, stated that the original point of the OGL was to allow WotC to benefit from the "Skaff Effect" - the theory that all sales in a given market work to increase the sales of the market leader in that market.  Or, simply put, the "end" of the creation of the OGL in the first place was to increase WotC's sales of the three Core Rulebooks.  Nothing high and lofty and moral about that - it's simply good business.

However, what most publishers fail to understand... or if they do, they don't want to accept because it's not what THEY want... is that part of the means to that end includes the publication, redistribution, bundling, et al of Open Game Content - including for free on the Internet.  You can't get the end without the means!

Now, every other OGL publisher - and this includes WotC itself on non-Core Rulebooks such as Unearthed Arcana - needs to understand that the OGL by itself cannot be part of their business strategy.  The OGL by itself will not accomplish your ends because you're not selling the Core Rulebooks!  Rather, you must use the OGL with regard to your business (or product) as a means rather than an end.

For many publishers, the OGL/d20 license are/have been a means of getting their name, their brand, their works, etc. associated with "D&D" or WotC.  For others, the OGL has been a means of getting access to an established body of work; i.e., not having to write the basic game engine from scratch.  However, because the terms of the OGL were specifically worded to reach one end - selling Core Rulebooks - using it to reach other ends is dicey at best... because the means it uses... the side effects, if you will, can be rather tough on your business model.

A publisher who doesn't go into the business understanding the ramifications that using a tool like the OGL - which was NOT designed to meet your needs exactly - brings with it.  There are at least two ways to deal with this - #1, try to lock down as much content as possible so the OGL's side effects have as small an effect as possible on your business plan.  #2, develop a business plan that accounts for the side effects and at the very least tries to make them irrelevant.

I happen to fall into #2.  My goal in writing OGL works is simple... I want to have a little fun and contribute something to the gaming community.  What this means is that if someone takes my OGC and publishes it on the web for free, _that accomplishes part of my goal_ - it contributes to the game community!  My ancillary goal is to bring in a little (a VERY little) money on the side.  Clearly, not all businesses can (or should) run this way.



> I wouldn't feel good about widely redistributing significant portions of Open Content except as part of a new product designed to add additional value to the entire system (or for my own personal use, but even then I'd only do so from a product I already legally owned). To do otherwise, I believe, is a disservice to those who've put hard work into the creation of that content, and ultimately serves to dissuade companies from continuing the practice.



Agreed on some points.  I wouldn't feel bad if someone sent me huge, legally distributed chunks of OGC from a product I didn't own, provided THEY acquired it legally.  I wouldn't feel bad about incorporating it elsewhere.  Because that's the nature of Open Game Content... it's SUPPOSED to be there for the taking.  As for companies being dissuaded to continue the practice of generous OGC delcarations - well, again, that's part of the OGL... if you don't like the risk, the prospect of redistribution should have dissuaded you from continuing the practice before you got started.



> 5) I also recognize that in the end, people are going to do what they want to do. Those who want to download illegal copies of a sourcebook--whether its from Wizards, Malhavoc, Game Mechanics, or anyone else--will find a way to do it. That doesn't make the practice any less abhorrent to me, and I don't think it justifies the stance of "I might as well post it, since they'll get it somewhere else anyway."



Agreed with you on that.


> I realize that in today's get-everything-for-free-on-the-Internet culture, these opinions probably mark me as the equivalent of a crotchety old geezer.  I guess I'll just have to live with that.



LOL!  I thought I was ENWorld's resident old curmudgeon!

Seriously, though, while IANAL, I believe the term I would point to is "estoppel" - something to the effect when you agree to one thing in a legal matter, it becomes very difficult for you to change your mind and withdraw that agreement later on.

The bottom line is, as an OGL publisher, all of us - myself included - agree right at the very start to allow people to re-use our OGC in any way they want with a couple of strings attached.  We do so in a very legally binding way.  To turn around and say, "Well, even though we SAID you can re-use it in any way you want, it's not right to use it in this way..." well, that to me starts down a WORSE slippery slope.  If there's one thing I believe VERY strongly in, it's "never lie."  If I didn't want to give you permission to use my stuff in almost any way you want, I shouldn't have lied and said you could.  Once I lie, and you catch me in it, can you ever REALLY believe anything I tell you again?  No.  My credibility is shot.  If I don't want people to use things in a certain way, I don't lie to them and tell them they can in the first place - problem solved.

I will continue designating the text of my books as Open Game Content... because I really DO want people to use them.  Any way they want (provided they use the OGL).  I have tried very hard to be polite and courteous and maintain a high level of credibility. 

A whole lot of the focus on these threads has been directed upon the would-be re-users... about whether or not legal re-use of Open Game Content is immoral, unethical, etc.  And I think a lot of it is less about Open Game Content than about "Fair Use."  People feel that "fair use" - by which I mean short excerpts, usually confined to personal use or within a small circle of friends - is the only ethical way to use material written by someone else.  I happen to think that there is another completely moral and ethical way to use material written by someone else - the way they explicitly permit you to use it!

My focus, instead, would be on the publishers and what THEY are doing regarding the OGL and OGC.

Here are a list of things I feel are unethical with regards to using Open Game Content:

*1.) Misrepresenting the work of another as your own.*  That doesn't mean you can't use anyone else's material at all.  It doesn't mean you can't wholesale copy and paste and (within the ways allowed by the OGL - unfortunately the OGL makes it a little tricky to really give good attribution) give credit where credit is due.  It *does* mean you don't simply wholesale copy and paste and try to pawn of the whole copy/paste job as your own idea (I could name a couple of PDFs that have literally been only direct copy/pastes of other products but which have represented themselves as original products).  I had no problem with, for instance, the Pocket Grimoires from Green Ronin - yeah, it was all copy/paste, but they told you, "this is a collection of stuff from many sources."  They were honest about it.

*2.) Ambiguous or intrusive PI/OGC designations* While WotC may not be enforcing them, a needlessly ambiguous or intrusive designation is probably in violation of the OGL (which requires such things to be "clearly designated") and since the whole point of the license is to allow people to re-use OGC, making it hard to figure out just what is OGC is akin to trying to to circumvent the license... in the same way that remaining silent when asked, "did anyone in this room see who did this?" when you did see the perpetrator may not be a direct lie (you're not telling a falsehood), but is certainly not telling the truth, either.

*3.) "Crippling" your OGC* I know, I know, the OGL "doesn't require me to make it easy for people to re-use my stuff" but this falls under the same general umbrella as #2 above.  You're technically within your rights, but that doesn't make it ethical.  The OGL is there to make OGC available, you're trying to make it "unavailable" - similary to security through obscurity.

I could think of more, I'm sure, but this post is WAY too long as it is.  Regardless, the point is that before any finger-pointing is done - by publishers OR by re-users, it's probably a good idea to examine your own practices... are they completely above-board?  Are they ethical?  Do you feel ANY need to justify what you are doing?  Are you being honest with everyone - including yourself - about what the OGL really allows to be done with OGC?

Bottom lines: 
A. Publishers need to get paid for their work, as Joe Browning so eloquently stated.
B. Publishers need to be completely honest with themselves about what effect OGC designations may have on their ability to achieve A.
C. Publishers should never lie by making OGC designations that they don't really mean.
D. The OGL has been around for four years now.  People should have some handle on what can and can't happen - there is little reason for a publisher to argue that they don't have enough information to reach conclusions with respect to point B.
E. Ethical would-be re-users should be entitled to assume the publisher "really meant it" when he said you could re-use his OGC.  Part of being ethical is the reasonable expectation that others will act ethically as well.
F. An "enlightened" re-user (ethical or not) recognizes that transferring and posting OGC too soon after release probably cuts into profitability and thus can affect Part A above.  By doing this, he adversely affects the amount of OGC available to him in future releases by forcing the publisher to re-figure B.

Thus, an "enlightened" AND ethical re-user ought to have no worries about what he does with the OGC (provided it's OGL-legal of course) but is enlightened enough to put a time lag on using it in a manner that could adversely affect sales. 

_The first burden of ethics is on the PUBLISHER to be totally honest with his OGC designation.  It is *not* reasonable to expect the re-user to assume that the publisher's OGC designation "may not REALLY apply - he might REALLY have meant something different."_ 

The re-user has the SECOND burden of ethics - to legally obtain OGC and to re-use it in the manner prescribed by the OGL - without taking undue credit for copy/pasted work as your own original work (again, "collections" et al are their own animals... in that case, the "work" is the collection, copying, pasting and arranging).

To expect anything else - from the publisher OR the re-user - is neither ethical nor wise, IMO.

--The Sigil


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 24, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> That is, I'm saying, "It's always okay to post OGC," and thereby concluding that any instance of posting OGC is good, while you're saying, "This kind of posting is bad," and thereby concluding that it's not always okay. If you see what I mean.



See my post above.  Let me apply a couple of quick logic tests, here though, because I think it may be enlightening.  I think it is reasonable to assume:

1.) Anything that a publisher declares as OGC is intended to be OGC.

2.) Anything that is OGC is intended by the publisher to be used* it in any fashion by anyone provided there is OGL compliance.

3.) Using OGC in the manner it was intended by the publisher is ethical.

Now, given 1-3 above, let us suppose I put forth belief 4:

4.) Person X putting an OGL-compliant posting of the entirety of the OGC declared as such by Publisher Y and contained in a work in one place for free on the web is NOT ethical (assume Person X is not misrepresenting it).

Let me look now at point 4 in light of points 1-3...

"Person X" is a subset of "anyone"
"declared as such by Publisher Y" is a subset of "anything a publisher declares as OGC"
"The OGC contained in a work" is a subset of "anything that is OGC."
"putting it in one place" is a subset of "in any fashion"
"putting it on the web" is a subset of "in any fashion"
"putting it on the web for free" is a subset of "in any fashion"

Thus, what we're looking at here is a use of that which was OGC (see Point 1) in the manner in which it was intended (see Point 2).  Point 3 tells us this is an ETHICAL use.  Yet Point 4 says that this is an UNETHICAL use. 

Clearly, one of our assumptions above must be incorrect.

Point 2 assumes the OGL means what it says.  We can't throw it out, or the OGL falls apart.

Point 3 seems self-evident.  

This leaves us with Point 1 or Point 4 as the false point.  Thus are choices are:

Point one is false.... it should be: Anything that a publisher declares as OGC is NOT NECESSARILY intended to be OGC.  If we assume this, we have to assume that the publisher is lying when he declares his OGC and therefore unethical.  

OR

We can asume Point 4 is untrue and thus Person X putting an OGL-compliant posting of the entirety of the OGC declared as such by Publisher Y and contained in a work in one place for free on the web is ethical (assume Person X is not misrepresenting it).  

Interestingly, one option forces the conclusion that both the Publisher and Re-User to be unethical, while the other option forces the conclusion that both ARE ethical (I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to derive).  This actually lets us simplify things to:

The re-user is unethical if and only if the publisher is unethical.
The publisher is ethical if and only if the re-user is ethical.

Interesting conclusion, no?  I'll leave it as a second exercise to the reader to decide which of the "if and only if" statements above they prefer to believe.

--The Sigil

*representing it in any fashion - e.g., as your own original work - is not necessarily ethical.


----------



## widderslainte (Apr 24, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> _snip_
> 
> However, what most publishers fail to understand... or if they do, they don't want to accept because it's not what THEY want... is that part of the means to that end includes the publication, redistribution, bundling, et al of Open Game Content - including for free on the Internet.  You can't get the end without the means!
> 
> ...




I tried to cut right to the core of what you said.  Frankly, I think the whole problem isthe word "open".   If publishers/content producers want to make arrangements between themselves fine.   

But if you start printing stuff including phrases like "Distribute, copy, edit, format" and "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive" with understanding the implications or not having upfront concerns about how this might affect your business if who's income is predicated on income from distributing that content, I have little sympathy.  

As aside, I think the analogy of software source code to game mechanics is a poor one.  Particularly as the basis of a business model, when the most successful software producer in the world is the most adamant opponent of the open source philosophy.


----------



## kenjib (Apr 24, 2004)

widderslainte said:
			
		

> As aside, I think the analogy of software source code to game mechanics is a poor one.  Particularly as the basis of a business model, when the most successful software producer in the world is the most adamant opponent of the open source philosophy.




...while at the same time being the most prolific beneficiary of derivative works.  Funny that!

Sigil,

Very well put.  I agree completely.  A third solution to the problem you discuss would be to alter the license to protect the interest of the publishers, thus rewriting the rules of the equation.  The solution Bendris Noulg suggested being a perfect example as it gives publishers a window of time to generate sales before the content must be opened to re-distribution.  This small window is very much in the original spirit of copyright.


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 24, 2004)

widderslainte said:
			
		

> As aside, I think the analogy of software source code to game mechanics is a poor one.  Particularly as the basis of a business model, when the most successful software producer in the world is the most adamant opponent of the open source philosophy.



If you equate "market cap" to "successful software producer" then yes, the most successful software producer is the most adamant opponent.  However, I could argue the most successful software producer is the one that had provided the most innovations over, say, a 50-year time period... in which case the "most successful software producer" (IBM) not only is a proponent of the Open Source  Philosophy, but has in fact benefitted GREATLY from the contributions of others (hint: IBM didn't write Linux itself).

However, I think you're missing the point of my analogy.  It was NOT to say that "the open source philosophy is the 'best' position."  Rather it was to illustrate some of the parallels in design philosophy and results.

Rather, it was to illustrate that the originators of the Open Source Movement - Egen Moglen and Richard Stallman - designed the GPL with one very significant goal in mind: to make it easy for others to build upon their works and at the same time ensure that they in turn would receive the right to build upon THOSE works.  In effect, the GPL is almost an "anti-copyright but you have to give credit" license.  The GPL itself is described by its creators as a "free as in freedom" license - which encompasses "free as in speech" and to some extent "free as in beer."

The OGL was created to by WotC/Ryan Dancey for the purpose of "outsourcing" unprofitable areas of RPG writing that WotC didn't want to take on but that helped support the game and drove sales of the Core Rulebooks - e.g., adventures (this has come from Ryan's own mouth many times).  That is their goal - to drive sales of the core rulebooks.

Now that we have sight of the goals, it's necessary to consider that on its own, the GPL didn't do much.  It couldn't do much.  There was no point in adopting it unless you were philosophically aligned with the views of the creators.  Similarly, the OGL, on its own, doesn't do much unless you're philosophically aligned with the "Open Gaming" concept.

However, the GPL came into the consciousness of its target community - programmers - when this nice operating system called "Linux" came along.  It was contributed by someone (Torvaalds) who WAS philosophically aligned with the GPL.  Suddenly, there was a "starting point" of considerable value from which you could work that gave some incentive to "buy into the GPL" even if you weren't 100% philosophically aligned with it... because if you could TOLERATE it, you had a *very* valuable (in terms of utility, which is valued among software programmers - the target community - above raw economic terms) piece of software to use.

Similarly, the OGL came into the consciousness of its target community - game designers - when this nice big rules system called the "System Reference Document" came along.  It was contributed by someone (WotC and Dancey) who was philsophically aligned with the OGL (granted, in the case of WotC it was purely for business reasons and harnessing the Skaff Effect; however, there is a part of me that STRONGLY suspects that Ryan Dancey's motivations were more personal - he has recounted the story of the fall of TSR and how the IP rights to D&D were somewhat scattered when WotC took over and I have this nagging feeling that Ryan himself wanted to put D&D - the game he loved - forever safely out of the reach of those who would ruin it as a game by entangling the IP - and that the OGL was his best effort at doing that by perpetually freeing up as much IP as possible).  Suddenly, game designers had a huge incentive to TOLERATE the terms of the OGL, even if they didn't love them... because they now had a huge and valuable piece of gaming literature to use.

Basically, these are the two points I wanted to stress: that (1) the licenses themselves reflect a philosophy and (2) the marriage of a substantial body of IP under the license is what "ignited" the takeoff and in large part provides the incentive for others to follow.  You need both.  

Many publishers are not 100% thrilled with every single term of the OGL... but the benefits of access to the large OGC library available clearly outweigh those concerns.  I'm sure IBM is not 100% thrilled with every single term of the GPL... but the benefits of access to the large code library available clearly outweigh IBM's concerns.  

Just like the GPL has given us such "smaller, ancillary companies" such as RedHat or SUSE, the OGL has given us smaller companies like Mongoose, Green Ronin, and Mystic Eye (not trying to insult anyone by noninclusion).  

Just as the GPL has seen larger, estabilshed companies in its field adopt the code it covers due to the value it provides despite having competing systems (e.g., IBM with its OS/2 system), the OGL has seen larger, established companies in its field adopt the SRD due to the value it provides despite having competing systems (e.g., White Wolf's SSS and Necromancer arms).

Just as the GPL has given us "micro companies" - such as the guy working on his Sourceforge project, the OGL has given us "micro companies" - such as ENPublishing or Expeditious Retreat Press... or even just "guy doing his own website" like Bendris Noulg.

I think there are a lot more similarities than you might want to believe.

Also, consider that the Skaff Effect may apply to Open Source software thusly - the more OSS apps that are out there, the more it drives sales of the OSS leader (NOT the software industry leader - after all, OSS apps are more apt to work with Linux than Windows, and so are less useful in encouraging people to use Windows than Linux)... which might explain why IBM adopted it (to try to win back its dominant position of 2 decades ago from Microsoft).  That the "industry leader" in software is not supportive of OSS may not be the right way of looking at it even though WotC is the industry leader in RPGs.   Remember what happened to most RPG's during the "trading card phase" - all of them were hurt in the "fantasy pastime market" and WotC became the market leader with Magic while it was competing for peoples' entertainment dollar with TSR's D&D.

Just some thoughts.  The analogy is not perfect, but there are a darn lot of parallels that are worth considering. 

--The Sigil


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 24, 2004)

widderslainte said:
			
		

> As aside, I think the analogy of software source code to game mechanics is a poor one.  Particularly as the basis of a business model, when the most successful software producer in the world is the most adamant opponent of the open source philosophy.




Let's assume that you mean Microsoft, Microsoft _was_ one of the biggest opponents of the open source philosophy. Not anymore, it's finally seen the value of opening up some of it's source code. Why? Because it can actually save them money, lots of money. They let a comunity help develop and debug a product and doesn't have to spend the resources to do it themselves. They might not use the GPL or one of it's close relatives, but it is a step in the right direction. It wouldn't suprise me in the least that at one time MS might actually make Windows open source, just not under the GPL.

But please bear in mind that although the GPL is open source, open source isn't just the GPL. There are many other types of licenses that are more restrictive, but still serve the open source philosophy (opening up source code for inspection and discussion).

The only real anology we can make is that OGL ~ GPL and not OGL ~ Open Source.

[edit]
*wonders if sigil is an ai*
Well said Sigil!
[/edit]


----------



## johnsemlak (Apr 24, 2004)

Andy Collins said:
			
		

> 3) I'm fiercely protective of copyright, regardless of who owns it. I believe that it's no more "OK" to illegally distribute a book that's sold 100 million copies for a multibillion dollar transnational megacorporation than to rip off a guy trying to make rent money by self-publishing his fiction. I recognize that not everyone shares this opinion--I've had to come down hard on a player *in my own campaign* who illegally obtained electronic files of books written by people I sit next to.





			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Andy,
> 
> I am just the sort of person who would not allow a pirated book at my table. Nor would I share a review copy of a PDF product with my players.




For better or for worse, there are many circles of people in this world who consider the attidudes in the posts above rediculous.  I'm not trying to condone or argue that point, just saying so.  Thus, copyright holders obviously have to live in a world in which many people think that way.

Also, of course, many countries have conflicting laws on the subject.  But perhaps more significantly many cultures have different values regarding the subject.  Considering that the internet reaches the entire globe, this makes the situation very complex.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 24, 2004)

Sigil touched a subject that has been on my mind a lot the last ten years, patronage vs. copyright. As Sir Thomas Babington MacAuley said, copyright is a neccesary 'evil' that was used to let creative talent make a living. When portrayed this way, i can only say, that it was a good move at the time. These days however, it's not used to let creative talent make a living, it's used to let companies make profit, instead of making the people that actually wrote have _compensation_ for their work. Note the use of the word _compensation_, _compensation_ as in payment for services rendered, and not as in payment for taking an idea hostage and profiting from it.

Copyright was instituted to let creative talent make a decent living, because they couldn't get a decent patronage from the rich and where very limited in the exposure their work could get before being published. These days i can chat and pitch an idea to millions of different locations/people on earth in the time of a mili-second. Patronage has become less of a problem, because more than one patron will step up to the plate if your idea has merit. Just look at this site when it came into financial difficulties, lots of patrons payed for keeping this site up. The same is being done with a lot of other projects, in software, writing, and dozens of other fields.

I'm not someone that wants it 'all' for free, i want it 'all' while making sure those who provide 'all' have a decent living. I see copyright as an outdated model that's being misused by both corporations and certain people.

The fact alone that such a large portion of the worlds population is guilty of 'pirating' should tell you that there's something wrong with the current copyright laws. The problem now is that 'pirating' is actually promoting the idea that everything is free and the people that rely on patronage are suffering for that.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 24, 2004)

You make it sound like it is illegal to enforce work-for-hire contracts, *Cergorach.*


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 24, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> You make it sound like it is illegal to enforce work-for-hire contracts, *Cergorach.*



No it isn't, sorry if i sounded like that, but i do find that current society's facination with making 'profit' is a bit ridiculous. I find it idiotic that certain individuals have billions of dollars and others struggle on a daily basis with getting their children enough food. What has this to do with copyright? Copyright and patents are the basis of this discrepancy in cash flow, certain groups/individuals are literally holding good ideas hostage for money (think of two extremes like crucial medicine and cartoon characters). Maybe this is a bit to politicall to be appropriate for this board, but it is how i feel about things like copyright and patents.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 24, 2004)

Before I go on, I just want to correct one thing.  Regarding the "Section 7" violation, I wasn't getting into specific OGL licensing issues, thus my example was a mistake.  My point was not to have the product reference the example directly, but to show an example--I think producing complementary products is a lot better than strip-mining and compling data for books.



			
				Fester said:
			
		

> Then why are you here?  You have no interest in debate and combined with your stamping of feet and yelling "You're a jerk!" really doesn't lead me to give anything you say much credence.  I've always found that when people get abusive, it's because their argument has unravelled, but they just don't want have the wit to know it or the honesty to admit it.




Please prove that I have been abusive.  Did I target a specific individual?  Did I find a specific instance of an Unearthed Arcana violation and call that individual a bad person?

Did you ever hear the term "love the sinner, hate the sin"?  That's pretty much what I was doing.  (And no, I am not saying that people are committing sins).  I am specifically targeting anybody who dumps entire published content online without either adding some value to it, and who doesn't care about being nice to the companies or creators who provide these rules, but just wants to get stuff free.    So far, I haven't seen anybody fall into that category.  Perhaps that is "subjective morality", but you'd find a lot of others might agree with it.  I can disdain the attitude of "well, it's legal, so there's nothing wrong with it", and call that attitude a little short-sided.

"Pompous and Pretenious Attitude?"  Funny, I could turn around and see the same thoughts from others here, just on the other side.  I did correct my notions of moral and ethical items since it casues such a harsh reaction, but in a debate you're going to get some condemnation if you have a strong opinion.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 24, 2004)

Sigil made some very good comments.



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> *1.) Misrepresenting the work of another as your own.*  That doesn't mean you can't use anyone else's material at all.  It doesn't mean you can't wholesale copy and paste and (within the ways allowed by the OGL - unfortunately the OGL makes it a little tricky to really give good attribution) give credit where credit is due [snip]...I had no problem with, for instance, the Pocket Grimoires from Green Ronin - yeah, it was all copy/paste, but they told you, "this is a collection of stuff from many sources."  They were honest about it.
> 
> *2.) Ambiguous or intrusive PI/OGC designations*
> 
> *3.) "Crippling" your OGC* I know, I know, the OGL "doesn't require me to make it easy for people to re-use my stuff" but this falls under the same general umbrella as #2 above.  You're technically within your rights, but that doesn't make it ethical.




I agree with point one--although in my mind, while GR's products are legal and I won't condemn them, I do think that falls under the definition of a grey area and I won't support that type of product on the marketplace.

Number 2, I'll agree with Ambigous--not intrusive though, since that is the opposite and help clearly define what you can and can't use.

Number 3--I am not opposed to "crippling" so long as it makes sense under the license.  If a person wants to, for instance, share some things but not all, that's their right.  The SRD doesn't describe monsters outside their combat use, for instance, and Wizards keeps a half-dozen monsters for themselves, others should be able to do that.  I have absolutely no problem with the way Malhavoc press works in that respect.  I do tend to support OGL based collections mostly because I wish to write published adventures, but I'm not opposed to keeping some of your stuff as PI on an ethical level.


----------



## Gez (Apr 24, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> No it isn't, sorry if i sounded like that, but i do find that current society's facination with making 'profit' is a bit ridiculous. I find it idiotic that certain individuals have billions of dollars and others struggle on a daily basis with getting their children enough food. What has this to do with copyright? Copyright and patents are the basis of this discrepancy in cash flow, certain groups/individuals are literally holding good ideas hostage for money (think of two extremes like crucial medicine and cartoon characters). Maybe this is a bit to politicall to be appropriate for this board, but it is how i feel about things like copyright and patents.




That's indeed too political for ENW, but you could come to NKL.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 24, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> That's indeed too political for ENW, but you could come to NKL.



What's NKL?


----------



## hong (Apr 24, 2004)

Andy_Collins said:
			
		

> Obviously, by making material Open, a publisher is allowing for its redistribution by other parties--that's the whole point, after all. On the other hand, does that mean it's morally OK for me to scan & post on my site the open content of every d20 product that hits the market?



I hereby give all viewers of this thread permission to scan and post, copy, redistribute, modify, fold, spindle and mutilate all open content of all d20 material posted on my website (http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd) to date, and further do extend such privileges to all similar material that may be posted to aforementioned website at such future date as may come to pass, so help me goawd. Just put my name on it, will ya?


Hong "he who dies with the most page views wins" Ooi


----------



## Nellisir (Apr 24, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> What's NKL?




Nutkinland, I presume.  ENWorld's dark alterego.  I've only gone by once or twice; can't tell you much about it.

On topic, I'm interested in UA's Contacts rules, Taint, Players Roll All the Dice, Level-Independant XP Awards, and Magic Rating.

Yes, I have the book; Yes I want them for a "product"; Yes I will type them in all by my lonesome if I have to and not complain about it; and Yes, it would be easier to share the effort with someone else.  If anyone has these entries already typed up and doesn't mind sharing with me, drop me an email... nellisir at comcast.net

Cheers!
Nell.


----------



## Nellisir (Apr 24, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> I hereby give all viewers of this thread permission to scan and post, copy, redistribute, modify, fold, spindle and mutilate all open content of all d20 material posted on my website (http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd) to date, and further do extend such privileges to all similar material that may be posted to aforementioned website at such future date as may come to pass, so help me goawd. Just put my name on it, will ya?
> 
> Hong "he who dies with the most page views wins" Ooi




Once again Hong proves himself cooler than an ice chest in Antartica.

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## Gez (Apr 24, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> What's NKL?




http://www.nutkinland.com/forums/index.php

Newbies only have access to one forum, but can reach the others after they've proven they aren't jerks or trolls -- or at least, that they aren't unfunny ones. That's where ENWorlders go to speak of things they don't want Eric's Grandma to hear -- religious or political debates, porn, profanity-ridden rants, whatever.

It's also a place where irony and nonsense is appreciated -- like the kinda mawkish name and the current hippy theme indicate.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 24, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> http://www.nutkinland.com/forums/index.php
> 
> Newbies only have access to one forum, but can reach the others after they've proven they aren't jerks or trolls -- or at least, that they aren't unfunny ones. That's where ENWorlders go to speak of things they don't want Eric's Grandma to hear -- religious or political debates, porn, profanity-ridden rants, whatever.
> 
> It's also a place where irony and nonsense is appreciated -- like the kinda mawkish name and the current hippy theme indicate.



Ahh... A kind of "Buldrek(tm)", kewl ;-)

But i... ah... erm... tend to spend wayyyyyyy to much time posting on such boards... So i tend to avoid them when i can ;-)


----------



## Chronosome (Apr 24, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> http://www.nutkinland.com/forums/index.php
> 
> Newbies only have access to one forum, but can reach the others after they've proven they aren't jerks or trolls -- or at least, that they aren't unfunny ones. That's where ENWorlders go to speak of things they don't want Eric's Grandma to hear -- religious or political debates, porn, profanity-ridden rants, whatever.
> 
> It's also a place where irony and nonsense is appreciated -- like the kinda mawkish name and the current hippy theme indicate.



 While Gez gives a great description, he only tells you some of what's waiting at NKL.  It's not necessarily _about_ doing what you can't here.  We're just not about censorship.  There are folks who don't rant or post porn, and stay away from anything political. 

Hey, it's kind of like Earth that way. 

Enough about NKL.  Carry on about getting my free copy of UA on the net!


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 24, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> [edit]
> *wonders if sigil is an ai*
> Well said Sigil!
> [/edit]



Nah, that can't be right, there's nothing Artificial about me.  I do exist in meatspace.  It's just that I read pretty much literally every waking moment (geez, I love the internet) that I'm not driving a car.  I have an insatiable appetite for reading and learning.  Couple that with the wonder that is Google which allows me to nigh-on immediately find nearly anything I have ever read of provided I can remember a key phrase or two, and it only LOOKS like I'm a computer-based lifeform... I'm really just a computer-dependent lifeform.

Hmm... on second thought, not sure the "Intelligence" part applies, either. Never mistake the ability to spew vast quantities of words - including those that would bother anyone suffering from sesquipedalophobia - with someone who's Intelligent.  

On third thought, THIS IS MY 1500th POST!   And a darn sight shorter than most of my posts, too LOL.

One of these days I REALLY have to figure out my "word count/post count" ratio here on ENWorld.  It will tell me I spend WAAAY too much time typing stuff here... and if I limited myself to one or two sentences per post, I might have a shot at running down Crothian's post count... or not.

--The Sigil


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 24, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> No it isn't, sorry if i sounded like that, but i do find that current society's facination with making 'profit' is a bit ridiculous. I find it idiotic that certain individuals have billions of dollars and others struggle on a daily basis with getting their children enough food. What has this to do with copyright? Copyright and patents are the basis of this discrepancy in cash flow, certain groups/individuals are literally holding good ideas hostage for money (think of two extremes like crucial medicine and cartoon characters). Maybe this is a bit to politicall to be appropriate for this board, but it is how i feel about things like copyright and patents.



May I suggest perusing http://yarchive.net/macaulay/copyright.html

Thomas Babington MacAuley had some more poignant thoughts on this matter; I'll throw some highlights here.  The guy's clarity of vision - his ability to see long-term consequences and forthrightness both impress me.



			
				Thomas Babington MacAuley said:
			
		

> The advantages arising from a system of copyright are obvious. It is desirable that we should have a supply of good books; we cannot have such a supply unless men of letters are liberally remunerated; and the least objectionable way of remunerating them is by means of copyright.
> ...
> If, as my honourable and learned friend seems to think, the whole world is in the wrong on this point, if the real effect of monopoly is to make articles good and cheap, why does he stop short in his career of change? Why does he limit the operation of so salutary a principle to sixty years? Why does he consent to anything short of a perpetuity? He told us that in consenting to anything short of a perpetuity he was making a compromise between extreme right and expediency. But if his opinion about monopoly be correct, extreme right and expediency would coincide.
> ...
> ...




MacAuley does a beautiful job illustrating the effect of a long copyright... it serves not to enrich the authors.  Rather is serves to enrich booksellers (in modern parlance, media corporations) who purchase the copyright from the author for what, over the course of copyright, is a price of pennies on the dollar.

He continues with a prediction whose accuracy (perhaps chillingly) fulfilled by the rampant copyright infringement via internet, P2P swapping, CD burners, photocopiers, et al of today.  Emphases below are mine.


> At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: {Sigil's Note: The Law to extend copyright to Life + 60 years} and that feeling is at an end. *Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law.* Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and *the whole nation will be in the plot.* On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?  Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. *The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.*



This, in my mind, does a beautiful job of illustrating BOTH sides of the copyright debate.  Once copyright has moved beyond the term of reasonableness, and society recognizes that the damage done by copyright far outweights the benefits to it, the whole of society will engage in copyright infringement.  Furthermore, he predicts that the dissatisfaction will start because the public will realize that authors do not really benefit from copyright, booksellers (corporations) do.  They further will be frustrated that they cannot utilize the works of those who are dead and thereby have NO MORE NEED for remuneration to promote their contributions to the Arts and Sciences (they're dead - they won't MAKE any more contributions).

Once that sentiment arises - that copyrights are too long in their current form, and that society should be able to make use of the works of somone long dead (as society does not easily recognize that someone OTHER than the author should benefit - such as a corporate entity), the whole of society will basically revolt against copyright... and as he says, since society has a hard time making fine distinctions, it will be able to rationalize and go down the slippery slope... "Well, copying from someone 50 years dead is fine... and copying from someone 45 years dead isn't all that different than that... and copying from someone 40 years dead isn't all that different than that...and copying from someone 35 years dead isn't all that different than that... etc... and copying from someone 0 years dead isn't all that different than that... and copying something that was written 5 years ago isn't all that different... and copying something that was written yesterday isn't all that different."

His choice of words... that booksellers that "cheat" an author of his copyright are "piratical" and that long copyrights are "intolerable" to society are interesting to me, since the booksellers (corporations) today are trying to turn this terminology around. 

Simply put, Macauley recognized full well exactly what the effect of long copyright would be and he told us exactly what would happen.  We have lengthend copyright anyway, and we SEE THE RESULTS - the last stat I heard was something like over 50% of US Adults have used File-Sharing services at one time or another, most likely for copyright infringement.  If that doesn't qualify as "the whole nation is in on the plot" I'm not sure what does.

Thus, I'm with Macauley.  Copyright, WHEN SEVERELY LIMITED IN TERM, is a good thing.  Copyright, as it presently exists, is an intolerable burden upon society and needs to see its term SEVERELY shortened. I personally feel 14 years is close to the "sweet spot" for copyright... which is why I will defend recent copyrights, but don't expect me to defend Disney when they lobby Congress AGAIN to keep 100-year-old Steamboat Willie, product of a 50-years-dead Walt Disney, for yet ANOTHER extension of copyright.

Heck, given these tenets, I have a very hard time defending the copyright of *anything published prior to 1990*... which includes most 1e and oD&D stuff (that doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to put myself in a bad legal spot by distributing it, but it *does* mean I will lobby - heavily - for it to be released into the public domain).  

But at least I have what I feel is a reasonable defense of my moral position... the defense that while copyright is okay (because I understand why we need it), the current term of copyright is too onerous.  I think even if you don't agree where the "Sweet Spot" in terms of copyright duration is, I think it's pretty clear that it's somewhere less than infinity - and if I pick a different spot than you (especially given that I would guess upwards of 95% of all revenue that will be made on works created prior to 1990 has already been made), that's a matter of opinion.

At the end of the day, this understanding comes from one who makes it a policy to learn about why something he dislikes exists... nobody enacted copyright thinking it was EEVIL... everyone always enacts laws they think are good.  However, I think the original purpose of copyright has been lost over time, and politicians today are not educated - or interested (or if you're more cynical, too much in the pockets of "booksellers") to understand why we have the laws we do in the first place.  In order to understand what to do when you propose change a law, it's important to understand what the reason for installing the law in the first place was.

--The Sigil


----------



## widderslainte (Apr 25, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> -snip-
> 
> The OGL was created to by WotC/Ryan Dancey for the purpose of "outsourcing" unprofitable areas of RPG writing that WotC didn't want to take on but that helped support the game and drove sales of the Core Rulebooks - e.g., adventures (this has come from Ryan's own mouth many times).  That is their goal - to drive sales of the core rulebooks.
> 
> ...




"The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software--which means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the users." _http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html_ 

I certainly know the difference between source code and a compiled program, and what it would mean to make a derivative work based on a source code of another program.  But as a "user", source code is worthless to me.  I'm not sure how you'd make an analagous distinction about the content of Unearthed Arcana (source code vs. compiled).

I apologize if I wasn't too clear last night.  My point in a nutshell is that if you don't like the terms of the license, don't use it.  I'm speaking specifically of Wotc and Unearthed Arcana, and the original point of the thread.  

People wanted to develop an online SRD of Unearthed Arcana material because it was open content.  I'm not going to argue to the details of the letter or "spirit" of the OGL, but either this is legal or not.  The fact that this *could* impact the sales of the book seems pretty freaking obvious to me.  I'm sure WotC could find a way to license "publishers" to use the content of the book without allowing Joe Schmoe D&D player to legally reproduce the content online, if that's what they really.  But it sounds like a lot of people are only concerned about the financial end of things, and not the "spirit" of the OGL, whatever that is.


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 25, 2004)

widderslainte said:
			
		

> I certainly know the difference between source code and a compiled program, and what it would mean to make a derivative work based on a source code of another program.  But as a "user", source code is worthless to me.  I'm not sure how you'd make an analagous distinction about the content of Unearthed Arcana (source code vs. compiled).



Sure, let's look at the analogy.  It might be fun.  In fact, I'll pull a very relevant example of a GPL program... Jamis Buck's Treasure Generator. 

I will differentiate among "source code" and "compiled program" and "output."  After all, the simple end user of a program isn't even interested in the program itself except insofar as it provides him with output (which could be graphics, a printed document, etc.).

The "source code" of UA is, in essence, the Open Game Content - the text. The "compiled program" of UA is the finished product -the physical book, with formatting, artwork, binding, paper, ink, etc.  The output of UA could be considered to be the set of pluses, abilities, etc. it grants a character.

The "source" of the Treasure Generator is... um... the source code.   The "compiled program" is... um... the program.  The output is... um... the output (a nice tidy list of coins, magic items, etc.)

The "end user" of UA knows he needs the book itself ("program") in order to get the adustments/abilities properly recorded ("the output") onto his character sheet.  This works just like any other product, including a "Closed Source" Splatbook.  It doesn't concern him that the source is open in UA any more than it concerns him that the source is closed in a Splatbook.  He's getting the output he wants.

*The only significant difference between the two is that the "barrier of entry" to re-use the "source code" is lower in OGL than GPL* because re-use of the "source code" in the OGL requires only an understanding of the English language and... relatively common software tools (a text editor) or a photocopier to produce a "program" (a book, webpage, or other publication).  Re-use of the "source code" of a GPL program requires an understanding of English language AND an understanding of the computer language in which the original program is written AND requires a compiler to produce a "program."

Look at the part I bolded above, because I think this is why you're having trouble with the parallel.  I submit to you that if you have a person who is "fluent" with C++ (the language in which the Treasure Generator is written) and has a C++ compiler, his re-use of Jamis Buck's program can be done as simply as his re-use of UA material.



> The fact that this *could* impact the sales of the book seems pretty freaking obvious to me.



In all honesty, it depends upon what the usual "sales curve" looks like.  WotC's is probably a little longer than the typical publishers, but nearly every 3rd-party publisher is on record as saying over 90% of their sales occur within 60 - and probably 45 - days of release of a product.  It might even be interesting to conduct a poll to ask folks when they purchased UA... you'd probably see that sales over the last month or so have been near zero... the "sales period" is all but complete, it's hard to significantly impact sales that are on the same order of magnitude as zero.



> I'm sure WotC could find a way to license "publishers" to use the content of the book without allowing Joe Schmoe D&D player to legally reproduce the content online, if that's what they really.



The problem is, this is a freaking HARD thing to do.  One of the "cans of worms" the internet has opened up is that it's REAL easy for anyone to be a "publisher" these days in the electronic medium of their choice (PDF, HTML, RTF, etc).  It's a nice pipe dream, but unless you have a "pay-to-get-in" license (which ISN'T open), it's all but impossible to effectively do.

I can't think of a good way to communicate that point, but suffice to say that because "e-publishing" is a legitimate form of "publishing," WotC would have had an exceedingly hard time crafting a license that somehow controlled it without destroying the "Open" and "Free as in Speech and Free as in Beer" premises.



> But it sounds like a lot of people are only concerned about the financial end of things, and not the "spirit" of the OGL, whatever that is.



It does... including those who are concerned about the impact "republishing UA to the web would have" - the fact that "it might hurt sales" blinds them to any other rational considerations.

To me, the solution is... and has always been... "package your OGC right the first time" - if you do a good job packaging your OGC with non-Open portions (as noted above, production values, art, layout, etc.) it's a pretty good bet that you will have gotten through the 45-day window when most of your sales occur before someone finds a way to create a presentation that delivers similar value to what you have produced for a lower price.  I have yet to see an OGC product - ANY OGC product, including 100% OGC products - that had a republished version of itself see the light of day in a short enough period of time and with sufficient publishing values to impact sales  of the original.  I haven't even seen a "close call."

If the amount of work "packaging" the raw OGC is substantial, that time required to add that value to the raw OGC will preclude anyone from reproducing the packaging in a time frame sufficient to impact your sales.

Put another way, if you worry that a "plain text" copy of your OGC work is going to meaningfully impact its sales, your business plan sucks - you're not adding enough other value to your work.  I don't know about you, but I wouldn't pick up a "plain text file" version of UA's OGC instead of my current hardback version if it came out today.

--The Sigil


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Apr 25, 2004)

widderslainte said:
			
		

> People wanted to develop an online SRD of Unearthed Arcana material because it was open content.  I'm not going to argue to the details of the letter or "spirit" of the OGL, but either this is legal or not.  The fact that this *could* impact the sales of the book seems pretty freaking obvious to me..



People are allowed to develop any kind of SRD they want using the open gaming content in Unearthed Arcana. Let's assume that Hasbro's team of lawyers have spent a lot of time deciding what is legal and are aware of all implications of releasing this book as OGC. TSR might not have always known what they were doing with the Web and with their legal budget--compared to the Hasbro megasaurus, TSR was a very small, silly, and inefficient mammal that briefly flourished in a strange climate but became extinct last millenium.

UA has already made a profit for WOTC/Hasbro, unless book retailing has already gone the way of the record industry. It's also WOTC's big dip into the d20/OGL swimming pool, their first book since the takeover that both uses other people's OGC and gives a sizable chunk back in return. As others have pointed out, it's also a way to put more toys in the d20 sandbox, a sanctioned set of optional rules that help set the way D&D is going to play with the other kids. 

In fact, a measure of how successful the OGL has been for WOTC is that the PHB, DMG, MM, and UA are (AFAIK) the only books that people have bothered to text-hack. There are lots of RPG products that people care enough about to scan and trade in a huge, unwieldy, often-crappy way. The D&D books that contain OGC are the only ones popular enough that users have converted them into an electronic format you can really work with; WOTC are also the only publishers that have opened the "source code" to their books, by posting their open content as a freely accessible SRD on the web.

It's probably safe to assume that neither WOTC nor Hasbro has missed anything that's freaking obvious to us. The interesting question is, are the Game Mechanics selling more copies of Swords of our Fathers now that some of its OGC has become part of official D&D? Since the Mechanics used to work for WOTC, they knew what they were getting into, and I bet they're watching their sales figures to see the results of this experiment too. 



			
				widderslainte said:
			
		

> I'm sure WotC could find a way to license "publishers" to use the content of the book without allowing Joe Schmoe D&D player to legally reproduce the content online, if that's what they really.  But it sounds like a lot of people are only concerned about the financial end of things, and not the "spirit" of the OGL, whatever that is.




Hasbro is stuck with the fact that Ryan Dancey gave all of D&D's toys to the sandbox. The OGL is a binding document that he designed to make it very difficult for anyone to claim that they own the basics of the world's most popular roleplaying game, or to revoke the OGL and take their toys home in a huff.

I think Hasbro knows what it wants, and they might also be the company that's best equipped to determine what the mass market of gamers really wants as opposed to what our tribal folklore says we want. The OGL was an experiment by WOTC, and Hasbro is probably watching the weird mutant it brought into the nest with some curiosity, but overall I think the experiment worked out the way Ryan expected. D&D didn't need to hoard its toys to be the most popular kid in the sandbox. Of course, lots of the other children still hate it because it used to be an unthinking and selfish bully, it's so much bigger than they are, and there's always people who don't like things that are popular.

The spirit and the legal intent of the OGL are the same. Open content is free for everyone to play with as long as they don't take it out of the sandbox and follow the rules while they're there. All OGC has always been free for the taking if anyone tries hard enough. We've just been in a brief evolutionary period where publishers could try to use print as a copy-protection scheme. As I'm sure all the hard-working scanners in our community can attest, extracting source code from the printed page is still a clumsy, annoying process.

If a d20/OGL publisher releases their entire work as open content except for the names they want it to be called, and then cries because other kids are playing with their toy, or don't want to be forced to pay money in order to play with it, or are sharing their own toys for free, it just means they're still too little to have figured out Ryan's rules for the sandbox.


----------



## Nellisir (Apr 25, 2004)

Dang it, lost another post.

Simply put, I don't think putting the OGC contents of UA online as an SRD is legal.  Why?  Because of this:

from the Open Game License


> (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic ...to the extent such content ...is an enhancement over the prior art".




I think the OGC in UA is fair game if you add something to it, but converting to electronic text and distributing for free isn't "an enhancement over the prior art"; you've actually made NO change to the prior art.  You've merely altered its means of transmission.  And if you haven't enhanced the "prior art", then it's not OGC and you can't distribute it.

However, I Am Not A Lawyer, and "prior art" may have a wholly different meaning than that I've attributed to it.

Sigil, those quotes are great!  Eerily prescient, and a perfect summation of what I feel copyright should be for.  Thank you!

Cheers,
Nell.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Apr 25, 2004)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I think the OGC in UA is fair game if you add something to it, but converting to electronic text and distributing for free isn't "an enhancement over the prior art"; you've actually made NO change to the prior art.  You've merely altered its means of transmission.




I'd argue that conversion to electronic text is itself an enhancement to the prior art (although I'm not sure that this is the central legal issue). The main advantage of the printed text to you is that you can read it in the bathtub; its main advantage to WOTC, as The Sigil points out, is that it is currently easier for them to make money selling it to you that way.


----------



## Nellisir (Apr 25, 2004)

Tav_Behemoth said:
			
		

> I'd argue that conversion to electronic text is itself an enhancement to the prior art (although I'm not sure that this is the central legal issue).




I think the central LEGAL issue boils down to: can you legally reproduce the entire OGC of Unearthed Arcana and make publically available at no cost?  Right now, assuming you reproduce 100% of the OGC from UA and add nothing, I'd argue no solely because of that line, AND that that line is there for precisely this reason.  The content is distinct from the presentation; otherwise you'd need seperate S.15 entries for a "screen" pdf vs a "print" pdf.  



> The main advantage of the printed text to you is that you can read it in the bathtub; its main advantage to WOTC, as The Sigil points out, is that it is currently easier for them to make money selling it to you that way.




Let's do a hypothetical.  If WotC published an unlocked PDF version of Unearthed Arcana and charged $34.95 for it, would you support making or distributing a 100% OGC identical free version?  The only "enhancement" would be the reduction of price.

It may well be that this has been done in the past, but the more I think about it, the less legal it seems.  There's nothing in the OGL about how OGC is presented -- it's required to be identified, but the presentation format is irrelevant to the content.

A correllary might be converting a VHS tape to DVD.  I think Star Wars is better to WATCH on DVD, but I don't think it changes the movie.  Same plot, same characters, same effects, same lines, same content.

As always, IANAL.

Curious
Nell.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 25, 2004)

Tav_Behemoth said:
			
		

> In fact, a measure of how successful the OGL has been for WOTC is that the PHB, DMG, MM, and UA are (AFAIK) the only books that people have bothered to text-hack. There are lots of RPG products that people care enough about to scan and trade in a huge, unwieldy, often-crappy way. The D&D books that contain OGC are the only ones popular enough that users have converted them into an electronic format you can really work with; WOTC are also the only publishers that have opened the "source code" to their books, by posting their open content as a freely accessible SRD on the web.



That's not true, for D&D 3E also the splat books and the psionics handbook where OCRed, as well as rule parts of the FRCS.
Guardians of Order have also made a couple of SRDs available of matrial that's also in their print books.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 25, 2004)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Let's do a hypothetical.  If WotC published an unlocked PDF version of Unearthed Arcana and charged $34.95 for it, would you support making or distributing a 100% OGC identical free version?  The only "enhancement" would be the reduction of price.



You can't distribute the entire pdf, because that's not OGC, the designated text is. So you could copy all the text that's designated OGC and create a new pdf with your 'own' layout and fonts that you can legally use. Then it's legal.

"enhancement" is simple, by creating bookmarks and links in the document it's pretty much an "enhancement".

If WotC or any other OGL company suddenly threw a fit because someone is copying OGC, they are a bit late, it's been going on since the release of the original SRD years ago. I would assume that, that in itself, is proof enough that it's allright to copy designated OGC text verbatim.

It wouldn't suprise me if someone would pick up the SCO sword up and started shouting that the OGL is against the American Constitution and a danger to kapitalism...



> A correllary might be converting a VHS tape to DVD. I think Star Wars is better to WATCH on DVD, but I don't think it changes the movie. Same plot, same characters, same effects, same lines, same content.



Good example, VHS vs. DVD. If it would mean that the subtitles could be turned on and off, it would definately mean an "enhancement" to me, that's the reason why i went for DVDs in the first place. No more annoying and distracting dutch subtitles for me, but the rest of the family can't watch a bloody english movie without subtitles. Not to mention the chapters that 95%  of the DVDs have...


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Apr 25, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> That's not true, for D&D 3E also the splat books and the psionics handbook where OCRed, as well as rule parts of the FRCS. Guardians of Order have also made a couple of SRDs available of matrial that's also in their print books.



My comrade from Amsterdam's point is well taken.  The Guardians of Order's Anime SRD as well as Gold Rush Games' Action! System SRD are both freely accessible on the web in electronic text form (see http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/index.html). And I certainly shouldn't have forgotten our own Bendris Noulg's Aedon open gaming project; make sure to list it at the Foundation when it's out of beta, Bendris!

The case of WOTC's splat books clarifies that popularity is the main factor in whether something is opened up by users, or "text hacked". My definition of text hacking is scanning, OCRing, and sharing something in a form that's readable by people; I'm considering releasing OGC in a machine-readable form, for use with PCGen etc., to be a separate phenomenon.

The PHB, DMG, and MM contain mostly OGC that was also freely released on the Web. The UA contains mostly OGC that was only released as part of the inaccessible print book. The splat books contain no OGC and also had a print-only release. Despite these differences, what these have in common is that someone cared enough to hack their text. In the case of the core books, this is a pirate activity, since copyrighted art etc. is included in the files that are being distributed. In the case of the UA, the OGL makes the text-hacking legal so long as the scanners nobly put in the extra effort to strip away all copyrighted material/PI from the OCRed text before sharing the fruits of their labor.

Even though all d20 releases contain some OGC, and some open content has been made freely available as SRDs, as far as I know no third-party release has been popular enough to inspire text hacking of the print book or customization of the free SRD. 

A good example of how popularity can trump all other factors is that the Bible is far and away the most consistently profitable book in the history of publishing, despite the fact that no one holds any copyright to its contents and people have been giving away free Bibles for hundreds of years. Ryan Dancey correctly predicted that the open gaming movement would turn core D&D into the Bible of the gaming world.

I think it's also true that:
1) Open games, especially those whose texts are easily accessible, will be more popular than games that do not have open licenses and are available only in print.
2) Community efforts that are open and licensed will be more successful than those that are shadowy and illegal; the work of the local UA team, like the customized SRDs at http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/, will be better designed and nicer to use than any pirate text-hack which violates the copyright of its source.


----------



## Nellisir (Apr 25, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> You can't distribute the entire pdf, because that's not OGC, the designated text is. So you could copy all the text that's designated OGC and create a new pdf with your 'own' layout and fonts that you can legally use.




As I said, "100% OGC identical" --  100% of the OGC is identical.  Naturally you can't copy the PI portions -- those aren't OGC.  For purposes of this discussion, PI is utterly and irrevocably irrelevant -- it doesn't exist.  Lets move past that.



> Then it's legal.
> 
> "enhancement" is simple, by creating bookmarks and links in the document it's pretty much an "enhancement".




You've enhanced the presentation, not the content itself.  You've made NO change to the content.

Remove the reader from the picture.  Look at the content outside of its presentation, or if that's too hard, consider it as a plain text file.  If it's 100% identical, it's not enhanced.



> If WotC or any other OGL company suddenly threw a fit because someone is copying OGC, they are a bit late, it's been going on since the release of the original SRD years ago. I would assume that, that in itself, is proof enough that it's allright to copy designated OGC text verbatim.




You're reading too much into this.  If I take, verbatim, 100% of the OGC content from Product X (totaling 200 pages) and add a one paragraph OGC example of how to use said content, I've enhanced the OGC and am legal to use it.  It's that simple.  The license clearly states you can copy Open Game Content...but as far as you're concerned, its not OGC unless you enhance it over the "prior art"



> It wouldn't suprise me if someone would pick up the SCO sword up and started shouting that the OGL is against the American Constitution and a danger to kapitalism...




No idea what the SCO is; don't much care.  I think the OGL is great.  I also think if you're going to use it, it should be used according to the letter of the license, and the letter says it's not OGC unless it's an enhancement over the prior art.



> Good example, VHS vs. DVD. If it would mean that the subtitles could be turned on and off, it would definately mean an "enhancement" to me, that's the reason why i went for DVDs in the first place. No more annoying and distracting dutch subtitles for me, but the rest of the family can't watch a bloody english movie without subtitles. Not to mention the chapters that 95%  of the DVDs have...




Same movie.  More convenient for you to watch, but same movie.  No change to the content.  Same gift, different bow.

The go-around to this is so incredibly simple, it's laughable.  Add something.  Make a contribution.  THAT'S the point of the OGL -- to force people to add something to the body of OGC.

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 25, 2004)

Actually, Nell, I think you are focusing on _part_ of a definition; One that supports your views when taken out of context.

For instance, consider Section 1g of the OGL which states:

"Use", "Used", or "Using" means to use, Distribute, *copy*, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content.

Relevant Opinion: "Copy" is considered a form of OGC use.

Compare that with the full listing of Section 1d:

"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic *and includes* the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody Product Identity and is in enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.

Relevant Opinion: Everything after "game mechanic" is in reference to conditions that may or may not apply to a specific piece of OGC.

Then we look at Section 2:

The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License.  *You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use.*  No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself.  No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed to this License.

Relevant Opinion: The bolded sentance is in direct relation to the "use" of OGC by the end-user, with "use" being defined in 1g and includes the act of "copying" the OGC.

I would argue that the inclusion of the term "copy" within the definition of "Use" would qualify a project such as an UA-SRD as legal and justified.  It's also necessary, else things such as the Prometheus SRD, the BESM SRD, d20Exchange, and other SRD-formating projects (such as those handy pdfs!) would be in violation of the license*.  Also consider products like Necromancer's _Necropolis_ which contains spells from _Relics & Rituals_.  Because these spells have not in any way or manner been altered, their inclusion would not qualify as an "enhancement" and would therefore be an OGL violation.  Following your reasoning, it becomes impossible to re-use any OGC without making some sort of alteration to the material which, in my view, makes it impossible to the "hope" of Open Gaming (that the best of the best will float to the top of the barrel) to ever become a reality because the best _must_ be changed in order to be re-used.

* I don't include the Action! SRD because it's a different system than d20 and as such would be considered the "originating" distribution.  However, anything created based off of the Action! system would equally qualify in the above list.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 25, 2004)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> You've enhanced the presentation, not the content itself.  You've made NO change to the content.



Depends on your definition of content.


> *content*
> # Something contained, as in a receptacle.
> # The subject matter of a written work, such as a book or magazine.



I could say that the receptable is the pdf, and the bookmarks/links are content of the pdf receptable.


> Remove the reader from the picture.  Look at the content outside of its presentation, or if that's too hard, consider it as a plain text file.  If it's 100% identical, it's not enhanced.



The OGL doesn't actually say that OGC needs to be "enhanced" to be considerd OGC, if you quote an important part of the OGL, quote it well.


> (d)”Open Game Content” means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art *and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law*, but specifically excludes Product Identity.



You kind of forgot the bolded part.

My OGC contibution will be:


> This product has been "enhanced"...



*grins evily*


----------



## jeffh (Apr 25, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> That's not true, for D&D 3E also the splat books and the psionics handbook where OCRed, as well as rule parts of the FRCS.
> Guardians of Order have also made a couple of SRDs available of matrial that's also in their print books.




I've seen an OCRed version of Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed, too.  In fact, I have it.  (I also have a legitimate copy of the book, which I bought at full retail price the day it came out, in case anyone's inclined to have a hissy fit over that.)  Just to make it clear, this is not a repackaging of the three PDFs of parts of the book that Malhavoc released, it is the entire book including the sections that appear in none of the three legitimate PDFs, OCRed with selectable text, including occasional obvious OCR errors but on the whole done very well.

It's been very handy for making the "Player's Handbook" for my next game, which will owe as much or more to MCAU than to standard D&D - for example, only about five PH classes will appear in it, but all the AU classes except the Oathsworn will be available, either as classes in their own right, or optional additions to classes via the Track system from Throwing Dice Games' Character Customization.  (For example, a "Warmain track" wherein a Fighter can give up some bonus Feats for the distinctive abilities of the Warmain class).  Anything that makes it easier for me to write this up is okay in my book, especially since I did pay full retail for the book once already!


----------



## Nellisir (Apr 25, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> My OGC contibution will be: "This product has been "enhanced"..."
> *grins evily*




Like I said, the go-around is fantastically simple.  That really wouldn't bother me a bit.

Cheers
Nell.
Who'll get to the rest of it later.


----------



## nikolai (Apr 25, 2004)

widderslainte said:
			
		

> People wanted to develop an online SRD of Unearthed Arcana material because it was open content... The fact that this *could* impact the sales of the book seems pretty freaking obvious to me.




I'm really not sure it would impact sales (though it obviously could). An electronic file isn't the same things as a book. It'd (likely) be cheaper to buy the book than to print the file out. To venture some (possibly incorrect) opinions: most D&Der probably haven't ever been to the WotC site, let alone know where to go on the 'net to get various online d20 stuff. It is within the realm of possibility that online copies may not damage sales. WotC does seem very relaxed about this, with the UA OGC and much of the contents of the recently released Map Folio being freely available on the website (and similar maps also being available all over the 'net).

I just want to stress that the impact of electronic copies on sales may be unclear and/or debatable.


----------



## Wasgo (Apr 25, 2004)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I think the OGC in UA is fair game if you add something to it, but converting to electronic text and distributing for free isn't "an enhancement over the prior art"; you've actually made NO change to the prior art.  You've merely altered its means of transmission.  And if you haven't enhanced the "prior art", then it's not OGC and you can't distribute it.




I think you've drastically misunderstood the license here.



> "Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.




This means that there are two types of OGC. The types that the publisher says are OGC, and things that modify existing OGC. Once it becomes OGC, such as the declaration at the start of the book, nothing will make it become no longer OGC. The point of this clause is that you can't modify existing OGC and declare that it is closed. Moreover, it means that all things like stat blocks, or other uses of WotC material is automatically OGC. It doesn't apply to the use of OGC in any way shape or form.


----------



## Nellisir (Apr 25, 2004)

*Everyone is right but me*

ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I'VE JUST LOST ANOTHER HOUR TYPING ANOTHER LOST MESSAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 - Everyone is right, I am wrong.  Cergorach identified the phrase I somehow stupidly missed every time i read the license.

2 - Bendris - you are right, I am wrong, but you've misinterpreted my reasoning and the consequences thereof.  However, I've just spent an hour explaining why, and it's gone, so screw it.  The core of my argument is wrong, and ergo the consequences are meaningless. 

Cheers all
Nell.

After 2 years on ENWorld, I've somehow managed to hit the wrong button 4 times in 24 hours and lose 4 posts and about 3 hours.  Frustrated is not quite the word.


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 25, 2004)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I'VE JUST LOST ANOTHER HOUR TYPING ANOTHER LOST MESSAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Ok, i've had this happen to me far to often in the last couple of years, so when i type up a long post, or a post i spend  lot of effort on, i copy the text to a txt file on my desktop and save it there. Much safer that way!


----------



## jgbrowning (Apr 25, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> Ok, i've had this happen to me far to often in the last couple of years, so when i type up a long post, or a post i spend  lot of effort on, i copy the text to a txt file on my desktop and save it there. Much safer that way!




This is now SOP with me if the message is longer than a paragraph. I figure that if I'm willing to take the time to write, I better be willing to take the time to backup. 

joe b.


----------



## Wasgo (Apr 25, 2004)

Since this topic is 16 pages long, I wanted to see if I missed any points.

There are two basic opinions.
1.) Publishers using the OGL must abide by any and all consequences of using said license. If they don't want to have those types of problems, don't use the license.
2.) Publishers occasionaly use the OGL more generously than is required, so there is an unwritten code of ethics in how the OGC should then be used.

Consequences of number one are that gamers and publishers can maximize their benifit by using the material however they deem fit, and that publishing large quantities of it online is a valid use. It makes gamers happier and is well within the license. This may or may not decrease sales and lead to more stringent declarations of OGC. People believe this is either irrelevent, or simply not true.

Consequences of number two are that people have to try to factor in values that are not explicitly stated, such as the publisher's opinion. This in turn poses a problem as it limits the use of OGC, and makes it difficult to determine what is fair. The rebuttal to this is that while it may be hard to determine an exact line, republishing an entire product on that line obviously crosses it.

So, in making a decision there are two factors:

1.) What are the consequences of republishing OGC online?
2.) Is fair determined by the license or some other unknown element?

Since number one is fairly ambiguous and completely speculative, it is unlikely any consensus would be reached. Moreover, the consequences have different meanings to different people, as they have different level of relevances they attach. Similarly, people's valuation of fair, is not likely to change and no general agreement will be reached on that.

Since I personally don't think any opinions are going to change at this juncture, I think this topic should be left to people who actually want to undertake this venture (which I still don't agree with). Further argument isn't really going to change anything.


----------



## Nellisir (Apr 25, 2004)

Wasgo said:
			
		

> There are two basic opinions.
> 1.) Publishers using the OGL must abide by any and all consequences of using said license. If they don't want to have those types of problems, don't use the license.
> 2.) Publishers occasionaly use the OGL more generously than is required, so there is an unwritten code of ethics in how the OGC should then be used.




I think that's a reasonable summation.  For myself, I intend to type up (or OCR) those parts of UA I need & want for my current projects.  Once those projects are complete, the relevant sections of UA will be available through my work.

I also like the d20 Exchange's policy, which is to index, but not hold, OGC material from resources that are essentially 100% OGC.

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## Wasgo (Apr 26, 2004)

After reading through the license again, I thought I'd throw in another post. Two little points.

1.) Due to it's trademarked nature, the online OGC could not be called the Unearthed Arcana SRD. Unearthed Arcana is a registered trademark of WotC and not OGC.
2.) More importantly, 


> 11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.



so it can't even by advertised as having anything to do with WotC. The only place WotC can appear at all in in the copyright section of the accompanying OGL. Moreover, advertising blurbs sent to news websites, could neither mention WotC or Arcana Unearthed. So essentially you'd have a Alternative Rules SRD, which you couldn't mention was from a WotC product, except in the license, and even then it wouldn't say it directly. Given those restrictions, it's much harder to imagine it having quite the same impact. I wonder if allowing OGC to be sorted by contributer would be in violation of section 11...but that's a whole seperate topic.

Also, interestingly enough, by republishing it, any third party who wanted to cut and paste the rules, would legally be obligated to credit the newly renamed SRD in the OGL. Nothing important mind you, but kind of funny considering no new content would be added.


----------



## RavenProject (Apr 26, 2004)

Wasgo said:
			
		

> Also, interestingly enough, by republishing it, any third party who wanted to cut and paste the rules, would legally be obligated to credit the newly renamed SRD in the OGL. Nothing important mind you, but kind of funny considering no new content would be added.



Why? The result of copying from the so called "renamed SRD" is identical to retyping directly from the book. A designer could copy/paste from the "alternative rules SRD" and still credit the original UA. No difference can be seen. It would only be a problem if he officialy explains, how he did it.


----------



## Wasgo (Apr 26, 2004)

RavenProject said:
			
		

> Why? The result of copying from the so called "renamed SRD" is identical to retyping directly from the book. A designer could copy/paste from the "alternative rules SRD" and still credit the original UA. No difference can be seen. It would only be a problem if he officialy explains, how he did it.




Hence why I said legally obligated.


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 26, 2004)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Simply put, I don't think putting the OGC contents of UA online as an SRD is legal.  Why?  Because of this:
> 
> Quote:
> (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic ...to the extent such content ...is an enhancement over the prior art".



You're looking at the wrong parts of the Open Game License there, chief.   That only tells you WHAT is OGC, not how you can use it, and you omitted one very important clause.


			
				OGL said:
			
		

> (d)_"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art_ *and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor*, _and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity_.



The stuff italicized above is, in essence, the "minimum" for OGC - i.e., anything that meets the above criterion MUST be open game content.  The stuff bolded above is the "optional part" - i.e., what can go beyond the minimum.

Since WotC's designation of OGC in UA was "all text that is not PI" and their PI clause was specific to a few monsters plus proper names, all text that is not in one of the above classes is Open Game Content by virtue of the "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor."

Now that we have identified WHAT is OGC, let us look at HOW it can be used.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> (g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content.
> (c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute;
> 
> 4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.



These are the clauses that tell you what you can DO with the "WHAT" that is Open Game Content, not the clause that defines what OGC is.  Note that one of the acceptable ways of using Open Game Content is "copying."

Thus, taking out vast swaths of text from Unearthed Arcana and copying it is QUITE legal, provided you do not copy any Product Identity (which, because WotC's designation is pretty clear about, you should be able to easily avoid).

Thus, the Open Game License explicitly allows you to copy and publicly display any material that has been contributed as Open Game Content.  No "enhancement" of any kind is required.

IANAL etc.

--The Sigil


----------



## Cergorach (Apr 26, 2004)

Thank Sigil, that's a lot clearer then i could have said it. Although i do 'understand' the OGL, explaining it is a lot harder.. ;-)


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 26, 2004)

Sigil, I wish you'd joined this party earlier. You've managed to so neatly encapsulate the issues, and have offered such clear analyses of the positions I've been laboriously trying to work out and present, that I wish I'd just waited until you arrived.

Thanks for that.


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Sigil, I wish you'd joined this party earlier. You've managed to so neatly encapsulate the issues, and have offered such clear analyses of the positions I've been laboriously trying to work out and present, that I wish I'd just waited until you arrived.
> 
> Thanks for that.



That's high praise.  Thanks for THAT.

--The Sigil


----------



## Voadam (Apr 30, 2004)

Tav_Behemoth said:
			
		

> Even though all d20 releases contain some OGC, and some open content has been made freely available as SRDs, as far as I know no third-party release has been popular enough to inspire text hacking of the print book or customization of the free SRD.




There are many copywright violating pdfs of print books from SSS, AEG, Green Ronin, Malhavok, Mongoose, etc. out there.

It is not just closed content more popular WotC books.


----------



## Wasgo (Apr 30, 2004)

Voadam said:
			
		

> There are many copywright violating pdfs of print books from SSS, AEG, Green Ronin, Malhavok, Mongoose, etc. out there.




Which isn't what we're talking about. The point was that no one has bothered ripping full OGC from any 3rd party books. Doing that is much harder than simply scanning it.

Speaking of which, what about contacting 3rd party companies and getting their blessing about ripping OGC from their OOP books? That would keep with the goal of preserving OGC material and not upseting the publishers at the same time.


----------



## kenjib (May 1, 2004)

Wasgo said:
			
		

> Which isn't what we're talking about. The point was that no one has bothered ripping full OGC from any 3rd party books. Doing that is much harder than simply scanning it.
> 
> Speaking of which, what about contacting 3rd party companies and getting their blessing about ripping OGC from their OOP books? That would keep with the goal of preserving OGC material and not upseting the publishers at the same time.




If you contact them for permission, then the whole point of the open gaming license is defeated.  You are essentially negotiating a new license, which you can do with any standard copyrighted stuff.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 1, 2004)

Although I do not want to deviate from the main target of the discussion (i.e., _Unearthed Arcana_), but have any of you ever think of doing SRD of third-party _d20_ products?

I know many of you are "gung-ho" (I apologize if it sounds aggressive) about doing such an _UA_ SRD and distribute it, but why is it just WotC's products? What about a _Field of Blood_ SRD, or a _Spycraft_ SRD?

I mean, if you're gonna do one, you might as well do all.


----------



## CRGreathouse (May 1, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Although I do not want to deviate from the main target of the discussion (i.e., _Unearthed Arcana_), but have any of you ever think of doing SRD of third-party _d20_ products?
> 
> I know many of you are "gung-ho" (I apologize if it sounds aggressive) about doing such an _UA_ SRD and distribute it, but why is it just WotC's products? What about a _Field of Blood_ SRD, or a _Spycraft_ SRD?
> 
> I mean, if you're gonna do one, you might as well do all.




Although I'm not involved in any of these projects, I'll note that:

* At least one major 3rd-party book is being turned into an "SRD" by readers, with the blessings of the publisher, no less.  (I can't immediately recall which, but it is linked to in this thread.)
* Many more people own UA than any given 3rd-party book, with the possible exceptions of some of the very early products.  This makes it much easier to get enough people together to gather the OGC.


----------



## Wasgo (May 1, 2004)

kenjib said:
			
		

> If you contact them for permission, then the whole point of the open gaming license is defeated.  You are essentially negotiating a new license, which you can do with any standard copyrighted stuff.




No, the whole point is that I don't need to ask for permission, not that I shouldn't. Just like I don't need to hold the door open for people. but I'm able to do that too. Moreover, it is nothing at all like a new license. It's a simple request with a yes/no answer. Once given, no negotiation takes place. In comparison, if there were no license, there legal team would have to look over my request, carefully draft a document, and if no money were to be made. probably wouldn't happen.


----------



## Wasgo (May 1, 2004)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Many more people own UA than any given 3rd-party book, with the possible exceptions of some of the very early products.  This makes it much easier to get enough people together to gather the OGC.




To be entirely fair though, with current OCR software, you don't really need more than one person per product, especially if we devised a standard template.


----------



## Nellisir (May 1, 2004)

Wasgo said:
			
		

> After reading through the license again, I thought I'd throw in another post. Two little points.
> 1.) Due to it's trademarked nature, the online OGC could not be called the Unearthed Arcana SRD. Unearthed Arcana is a registered trademark of WotC and not OGC.




True, but you could call it the Dug-Up Magic Book System Reference Document...

 
Nell.
Who thinks he's far cleverer late at night than he really is.


----------



## Henry (May 1, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I know many of you are "gung-ho" (I apologize if it sounds aggressive) about doing such an _UA_ SRD and distribute it, but why is it just WotC's products? What about a _Field of Blood_ SRD, or a _Spycraft_ SRD?
> 
> I mean, if you're gonna do one, you might as well do all.




I'm gung-ho about ALL of them that can be legally done; similar to Eric Noah's position, I LOVE electronic support for my RPG's. This includes online reference documents - I'll take them where I can get them. So if someone does a legal "Exhumed Esoterica" That means I have a copy that I can pick apart and put into my game notes, or just browse from my computer when I'm trying to help someone answer a rules question. If I could, I'd have Spycraft, Arcana Unearthed, and Mutants and Masterminds as OGC PDF's - but because trying to surgically remove the PGC in these games is a tricky job, you'd have something reminiscent of a cyborg carved back into his constiuent parts - in other words, ugly and unviable. It would have to have game parts replaced before being useful for reference, and it might as well be another, free, OGC game that is similar in content.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 1, 2004)

Wasgo said:
			
		

> It's a simple request with a yes/no answer. Once given, no negotiation takes place. In comparison, if there were no license, there legal team would have to look over my request, carefully draft a document, and if no money were to be made. probably wouldn't happen.



Ah, but you see, there _is_ a license, and by the terms of that license, they have already said "yes" by the very act of using it.

No one has yet given a single valid reason why I, using the license as it was written, should have to ignore their original "yes" and provide them with a pointless opportunity to say "no" for whatever reason they feal like other than "it's polite".  However, the only way it could be _impolite_ is if permission wasn't already given, which it was when the license was used.  Anyone that intends to say "no" shouldn't be using the license because the license doesn't allow "no" as an answer.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 1, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I know many of you are "gung-ho" (I apologize if it sounds aggressive) about doing such an _UA_ SRD and distribute it, but why is it just WotC's products? What about a _Field of Blood_ SRD, or a _Spycraft_ SRD?



The only people that are "gung-ho" are the folks with OCR capability, and they don't seem to be sharing.

Myself, I'm gung-ho for doing the parts I'm using, of which I'd gladly contribute those parts to anyone compiling an SRD or, for that matter, wants the material for their own works.  As is, though, no one indicated that they wanted Sanity, so while I transcribed it verbatum (minus PI-references to CoC), it's now been edited and chopped-up for Aedon, making it unusuable to anyone not wanting to use my changes (a thing I'll just label as "unlikely").

However, I will be doing Taint during the next week or two.  Anyone interested can email me for the transcription.



> I mean, if you're gonna do one, you might as well do all.



As above, I only transcribe what I actually use.  For instance, I transcribed two monsters from _Midnight_ (Astarix and Fell) for my own use, but I sent them on to the Midnight SRD team before making my own changes (scratch that...  I sent the Astarix in, I'm not done doing the Fell).  I've done a few dozen spells from _R&R_ and _R&R2_ (S&SS), _School of Illusion_ (Fantasy Flight), _Magic_ (AGE) and a few other sources.  After decripling what needed decripling, but before making any changes for my own RPG, I submitted them to d20Exchange.  There are a few adventures (mostly AEG's and FFG's "pamphlet adventures") that I've "SRD'd" when you consider that fact that they tend to have one or two monsters or a magic item in them.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 1, 2004)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Who thinks he's far cleverer late at night than he really is.



Yeah, but you made me chuckle anways...


----------



## jeffh (May 1, 2004)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> * At least one major 3rd-party book is being turned into an "SRD" by readers, with the blessings of the publisher, no less.  (I can't immediately recall which, but it is linked to in this thread.)




It's Midnight.


----------



## kenjib (May 1, 2004)

Wasgo said:
			
		

> No, the whole point is that I don't need to ask for permission, not that I shouldn't. Just like I don't need to hold the door open for people. but I'm able to do that too. Moreover, it is nothing at all like a new license. It's a simple request with a yes/no answer.




As I understand it, a "simple request with a yes/no answer" is a verbal contract that is recognized by law, at least in the US.  Such a verbal contract in this situation, as you described it, would be licensing the material for use.  Thus it's a license and, granted the difficulty of proving it (which is not relevant), can be used in court.

This semantic nitpick aside, and more to my point, asking permission of someone to use their material is something you could do for non-OGL material, and the copyright holder of non-OGL material could just as easily grant you permission to use it.  In the exchange you suggest the OGL has been completely bypassed because the act of asking permission has created a completely new mechanism of granting rights to use the material via a verbal contract.  What is the point of the OGL again?



			
				Wasgo said:
			
		

> Once given, no negotiation takes place. In comparison, if there were no license, there legal team would have to look over my request, carefully draft a document, and if no money were to be made. probably wouldn't happen.




Barsoomcore's permitted use of Modern SRD graphics in this very thread is a precise example of such a case where WotC allowed someone to use non-OGL content without any clear monetary benefit nor legal documents exchanged.  This happens frequently with fan sites and fan material.  Didn't Dragonlance, Dark Sun, and Planescape run like this for a long time too (some of them possibly still doing so)?


----------



## Wasgo (May 1, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Ah, but you see, there _is_ a license, and by the terms of that license, they have already said "yes" by the very act of using it.
> 
> No one has yet given a single valid reason why I, using the license as it was written, should have to ignore their original "yes" and provide them with a pointless opportunity to say "no" for whatever reason they feal like other than "it's polite".  However, the only way it could be _impolite_ is if permission wasn't already given, which it was when the license was used.  Anyone that intends to say "no" shouldn't be using the license because the license doesn't allow "no" as an answer.




I really want this part of the topic to be dead, but I'll give one last reply. With many of the game publishers, they do 100% OGC which is the metaphorical equivilant of a blank cheque. The intended use is for it to be used to aid in the creation of of other products, but much like an actual blank cheque, you can't directly influence its use. By the terms of the license, they said I _can_  use any OGC, not that I should. Laws can't tell people what they should do, only what they're allowed to do. So, some people, like myself, feel that by asking what they intend, we're extending control back to them that they gave away in the license. It's not required legally, nor directly by any implication on their part. But the bottom line is that they use the OGL to allow others to use their copyright, and when I use other people's ideas, I like to show them some respect. Especially if it may influence how they produce in the future.

But like I said before, I'm not trying to convince people not to OCR the WotC book, so I don't know where people get off trying to tell me not to ask for permission. That's their choice, and this is mine.


----------



## Cergorach (May 1, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Although I do not want to deviate from the main target of the discussion (i.e., _Unearthed Arcana_), but have any of you ever think of doing SRD of third-party _d20_ products?
> 
> I know many of you are "gung-ho" (I apologize if it sounds aggressive) about doing such an _UA_ SRD and distribute it, but why is it just WotC's products? What about a _Field of Blood_ SRD, or a _Spycraft_ SRD?
> 
> I mean, if you're gonna do one, you might as well do all.



_Field of Blood_ 25% done
_Spycraft_ 35% done
;-)

For FoB i was aiming for the 10th of may, don't know if i can make that though.
Spycraft is a lot of work, don't expect that in the next couple of months...


----------



## Wasgo (May 1, 2004)

kenjib said:
			
		

> As I understand it, a "simple request with a yes/no answer" is a verbal contract that is recognized by law, at least in the US.  Such a verbal contract in this situation, as you described it, would be licensing the material for use.  Thus it's a license and, granted the difficulty of proving it (which is not relevant), can be used in court.




However, it is not a license considering there is already an existing license in effect that is not bound by any new license. Unless I explictly gave up my right to use OGC, the yes/no comment is merely politeness on my part. It is above and beyond the actual license and has no bearing on contract law.



> This semantic nitpick aside, and more to my point, asking permission of someone to use their material is something you could do for non-OGL material, and the copyright holder of non-OGL material could just as easily grant you permission to use it.  In the exchange you suggest the OGL has been completely bypassed because the act of asking permission has created a completely new mechanism of granting rights to use the material via a verbal contract.  What is the point of the OGL again?
> 
> Barsoomcore's permitted use of Modern SRD graphics in this very thread is a precise example of such a case where WotC allowed someone to use non-OGL content without any clear monetary benefit nor legal documents exchanged.  This happens frequently with fan sites and fan material.  Didn't Dragonlance, Dark Sun, and Planescape run like this for a long time too (some of them possibly still doing so)?




What you're saying here is simply not true. As someone who followed the Dark Sun and Planescape licenses, WotC drafted a really strict contract that said essentially "We can take away your rights at any time," and as Barsoomcore mentioned, they can do the same for the graphics. The OGL grants non-exclusive, absolute rights to do with the material as you please to a large extent. It is a very different type of contract than those granted on a per-use basis. Simply put, this one has legal backing, and those don't. So, if I ask WotC permission to reprint a feat from the Complete Warrior, I'd be granted limited use. It could be retracted at will, and a verbal contract wouldn't hold water. Whereas if I reprinted material from Unearthed Arcana, I would legally be in the right. The OGL is a quick method of allowing use of your copyright, without dealing with it on a case-by-case basis.

Moreover, once again, I'm not saying that one would want to contact a publisher every single time they use OGC (I would, but that's beside the point.) I'm saying, when you strip the PI, and re-release one of their works, you're essentially creating a competing product and potentially hurting their business. Asking for permission allows them to say either "No, it will hurt our sales," or "Yes, go ahead, we don't mind." It has nothing to do with the OGL, and everything to do with supporting the companies that produce the material I love.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 1, 2004)

Wasgo said:
			
		

> I really want this part of the topic to be dead, but I'll give one last reply.



I'm sure you _do_ wish it would go away *because it's the point that shows that you don't have a friggin' clue.*



> With many of the game publishers, they do 100% OGC which is the metaphorical equivilant of a blank cheque. The intended use is for it to be used to aid in the creation of of other products, but much like an actual blank cheque, you can't directly influence its use.



Exactly!



> By the terms of the license, they said I _can_ use any OGC, not that I should. Laws can't tell people what they should do, only what they're allowed to do. So, some people, like myself, feel that by asking what they intend, we're extending control back to them that they gave away in the license. It's not required legally, nor directly by any implication on their part. But the bottom line is that they use the OGL to allow others to use their copyright, and when I use other people's ideas, I like to show them some respect. Especially if it may influence how they produce in the future.



Several points...

1. No one is saying that we _should_ use the material. However, we are allowed to _choose_ to use the material. What you are suggesting is to relinquish our right to use the material on the whim of the original Contributor.

2. The manner of showing an original Contributor respect is clear in the license: Don't use their PI and list them in Section 15.



> But like I said before, I'm not trying to convince people not to OCR the WotC book, so I don't know where people get off trying to tell me not to ask for permission. That's their choice, and this is mine.



No one's telling you not to ask for "permission". What we're saying is that it is rediculous of _you_ to insist that _we_ should ask for permission when that permission is already granted _and_ it is rediculous of you to imply that we are being disrespectful for it.

Go right on ahead and ask permission all _you_ want. Go ahead. Ask away. That doesn't bother any of us in the slightest. Just don't expect anyone else to be as anal about it as you are.


----------



## Wasgo (May 1, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> I'm sure you _do_ wish it would go away *because it's the point that shows that you don't have a friggin' clue.*



 First of all this is flaming.



> 1. No one is saying that we _should_ use the material. However, we are allowed to _choose_ to use the material. What you are suggesting is to relinquish our right to use the material on the whim of the original Contributor.




No, I'm saying this is what I'm going to do. As I've already said, other people can set their own morals where they choose. It's not a matter of right morality versus wrong morality. It's a case of what I believe is fair is different than you. Glad you can understand that.



> 2. The manner of showing an original Contributor respect is clear in the license: Don't use their PI and list them in Section 15.




Remember how laws don't have spirit? They also don't have built in repect.



> No one's telling you not to ask for "permission". What we're saying is that it is rediculous of _you_ to insist that _we_ should ask for permission when that permission is already granted _and_ it is rediculous of you to imply that we are being disrespectful for it.




I'm not insisting you do anything! I already stated that people who wanted to do this should be left alone to do it. The fact you're not remotely go by my actual opinion is more annoying than anything else. The topic I was discussing was off-topic and has nothing to do with your project. And I'm not stating you're being disrespectful. To me, it doesn't show enough respect. Your code of conduct isn't the same as mine, and nothing says it has to be. I want the topic to die so that people can work on their respective projects instead of flaming. (Much like your post.)



> Go right on ahead and ask permission all _you_ want. Go ahead. Ask away. That doesn't bother any of us in the slightest. Just don't expect anyone else to be as anal about it as you are.




Let me explain this simply. I don't care what you do. The topic was brought up about OCR other companies OGC, and I was seeing what other people thought about asking the companies themselves. Just because you can't be bothered to read through all the posts, doesn't make it right for you to go off half-cocked.

I'm not challenging your right to the project, I'm not challenging your conduct. I'm simply saying that the license itself doesn't dictate how it will be used. How you intend to use it is up to you, but laws don't dictate morality. Laws don't have spirit, morality, fairness, or anything else. It's just a contract. How I intend to use that contract, in no way impedes on your usage. The only reason I got back on this part of the topic at all is because I'm being attacked, and it's hardly limited to my views.


----------



## nHammer (May 1, 2004)

After going through this thread(I got a heaadache   ) I have a question....

Does anybody have UA content legally on line for me to look over, so I can decide if I want to buy the book? I don't get to the store often enough to look it over there.

If not, then I get it illegaly, look it over and decide if I want to buy it or not.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 1, 2004)

Wasgo said:
			
		

> First of all this is flaming.



Only on _Romper Room_ and _Mister Roger's Neighborhood_.



> No, I'm saying this is what I'm going to do. As I've already said, other people can set their own morals where they choose. It's not a matter of right morality versus wrong morality. It's a case of what I believe is fair is different than you. Glad you can understand that.



I do understand it.  However, bringing up the fact that you choose to do so lends no weight what-so-ever to the topic, so I gotta ask: Are you bringing it up to look morally superior or just as an FYI?  Cause we've already trumped the morality issue, and if it's just an FYI, well, a dozen posts saying the same thing goes well beyond making a point.



> Remember how laws don't have spirit? They also don't have built in repect.



Glad you see my point.



> I'm not insisting you do anything! I already stated that people who wanted to do this should be left alone to do it. The fact you're not remotely go by my actual opinion is more annoying than anything else.



The fact that you keep bringing it up is rather annoying in itself, but not as annoying as not understanding what the hell your trying to say in that last sentance.



> The topic I was discussing was off-topic and has nothing to do with your project.



Which project would that be?



> And I'm not stating you're being disrespectful. To me, it doesn't show enough respect.



Wow...  So much said in two little sentances.



> Your code of conduct isn't the same as mine, and nothing says it has to be. I want the topic to die so that people can work on their respective projects instead of flaming. (Much like your post.)



For someone that wants the topic to die, you seem unable to resist continuing it.



> Let me explain this simply. I don't care what you do. The topic was brought up about OCR other companies OGC, and I was seeing what other people thought about asking the companies themselves. Just because you can't be bothered to read through all the posts, doesn't make it right for you to go off half-cocked.



I am reading all the posts.  That's the problem: You keep repeating yourself, and with little to no real reason.



> I'm not challenging your right to the project, I'm not challenging your conduct. I'm simply saying that the license itself doesn't dictate how it will be used. How you intend to use it is up to you, but laws don't dictate morality. Laws don't have spirit, morality, fairness, or anything else. It's just a contract. How I intend to use that contract, in no way impedes on your usage. The only reason I got back on this part of the topic at all is because I'm being attacked, and it's hardly limited to my views.



Well, I certainly don't know anything about you other than your views (and those being limited to the ones you keep repeating in this thread).  However, one thing the license _does_ dictate is that, once made OGC, what happens to the material, when it happens, and how it's done, is irrelevant so long as its within the bounds of the license.  I cannot support (and will indeed speak against) anything that allows an individual to go around the license and prevent the re-use of OGC they released under it.  To which, "asking" for "permission" which is already given does just that; you might as well ask, "is this material really OGC?" because if the material _is_ OGC, than no one has the right to say "no" to its re-use.  Indeed, I would find being told "no" to be disrespectful, both towards me and Open Gaming.  As is, I'd rather know people for the excellent work they do instead of knowing what kind of jerks they are.

To which, while you see it as something that "should" be done, I see it as something that "should not" be done.  And you can definately expect me to repeat such everytime you bring it up.


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 1, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> I cannot support (and will indeed speak against) anything that allows an individual to go around the license and prevent the re-use of OGC they released under it.  To which, "asking" for "permission" which is already given does just that; you might as well ask, "is this material really OGC?" because if the material _is_ OGC, than no one has the right to say "no" to its re-use.  Indeed, I would find being told "no" to be disrespectful, both towards me and Open Gaming.  As is, I'd rather know people for the excellent work they do instead of knowing what kind of jerks they are.




I think the problem those of us who disagree with you see is the following:

Legally, the license leans on the side of being open.  Publishers choose to use this license because it is helpful for there own products and to be compatible with D&D.  Again, you've emphasized that there is nothing we can do about that.  

However, some of us feel that posting copious amounts of text on-line for free from products is taking advantage of the flawed aspects of the license.  We would rather ask the publisher if they would mind.  I agree with Monte Cook, it is good form to ask publishers if they'd mind before undergoing these actions.

People are free to do what they want, however, I do fear the consequences will be that a 4th Edition D&D will be more closed, and that fewer publishers will participate if people take advantage of this.  Time will tell if this great experiement fails or succeeds.  In this case, we want to err on the side of caution.



> Indeed, I would find being told "no" to be disrespectful, both towards me and Open Gaming.  As is, I'd rather know people for the excellent work they do instead of knowing what kind of jerks they are.




The license isn't as important to me as the economic survival of the people who provide such works.  I don't think a publisher asking for restraint is a bad thing.  "Open Gaming" was, as Ryan himself stated, designed to increase the market share of the hobby.  You sort of reveal your "subjective morality" by calling whoever asks for this restraint as a "jerk"--the same thing you got mad at me about--and saying that it's an insult to "open gaming" to ask for a little more restraint.  Wow, Open Gaming doesn't have any feelings, it's sort of like that erroneous meme that "Information Wants to be Free"...Information doesn't want for anything, it has no sentience.  

Somehow, I can't see people like Andy Collins, Chris Pramas, or Monte Cook as jerks for asking people to just use a little restraint.

Is there any sort of benefit for the hobby to have rules that people are expected to pay for appear on-line?  The marginalization of paid content into free content can't exist without severe consequences to the industry--and the industry is what keeps the hobby alive.  If publishers feel themselves being exploited, they will pull out and stop providing cool stuff.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Publishers choose to use this license because it is helpful for there own products and to be compatible with D&D.



How compatible is M&M?  How about T20?  Judge Dread?

You have a narrow view of the license's proven potential.



> However, some of us feel that posting copious amounts of text on-line for free from products is taking advantage of the flawed aspects of the license.



Actually, what's flawed is the lack of fore-sight to build in a mandatory OGL depository.



> We would rather ask the publisher if they would mind.



Of course, the issue at-hand isn't the reproduction of OGC in SRD format (or better) on the web, it's the Distribution of previously released OGC in _any _form.  It could be the day after release, a month after release, or a year after release.  And it could be of any amount.

And, again, I ask, if they "mind", does this mean that we _can't_ Distribute the OGC?  If not, what if we do anyways?  Does their private or public statement requesting we not do so in any way invalidate or nullify the material as OGC, or restrict my ability to use it?

And that's my problem with it; it's empty, inconsequential, and completely defeats the purpose of Open Gaming by circumventing the "open" part of the deal.



> People are free to do what they want, however, I do fear the consequences will be that a 4th Edition D&D will be more closed, and that fewer publishers will participate if people take advantage of this. Time will tell if this great experiement fails or succeeds. In this case, we want to err on the side of caution.



If we tip-toe around it now, why would we stop tip-toeing around it 5, 10 or 15 years from now?  WotC is already under _no_ obligation to release _anything_ as OGC.  They wouldn't have to worry about this mythical closed-4E; they could completely turn their backs on it now without making any major changes to the system.  About the most we _should_ expect is more revisions to tighten their fist around the d20STL.



> The license isn't as important to me as the economic survival of the people who provide such works. I don't think a publisher asking for restraint is a bad thing.



Define "Restraint"?

Would "restraint" qualify as a no for any of the following:

1. This new spell in your new book is kewl.  Can I give it to an NPC in my new book?

2. This new Prestige Class in your new book is kewl.  Can I use it for an organization in my new book?

3. This new method of magic in your new book is kewl.  Can I use it as a villain-base in my new book?

4. This book of warfare is kewl.  Can I use it as the warfare system in my new book?

If _any_ of these answers comes back as a "no", the purpose of the license has been subverted.



> "Open Gaming" was, as Ryan himself stated, designed to increase the market share of the hobby. You sort of reveal your "subjective morality" by calling whoever asks for this restraint as a "jerk"--the same thing you got mad at me about--and saying that it's an insult to "open gaming" to ask for a little more restraint. Wow, Open Gaming doesn't have any feelings, it's sort of like that erroneous meme that "Information Wants to be Free"...Information doesn't want for anything, it has no sentience.



Again, define "restraint"?  If "restraint" entails limiting the use of the license, then it's more than "restraint".  If restraint means getting the nod to use something already legally made usable _by the origanal creator's consent_ to use it, then it's more than "restraint".

Tell me that you would send an email to a Contributor _announcing_ your Use of their OGC, then I'd see no problem with it.  But to ask for permission is silly.



> Somehow, I can't see people like Andy Collins, Chris Pramas, or Monte Cook as jerks for asking people to just use a little restraint.



And none of them to date are on record saying "no".  If anyone reading this thread has been told "no" by any of these people, or any others in fact, than feel free to say so.

What I have seen is CP asking a poster not to do it and the poster accepting the reasons given.  Okay.

What I have also seen is AC calling the idea of OGC extraction and the people that do it "petty", followed up by a rather misleading and misdirected comparison of OGC extraction to literary piracy.  Not so okay, but who cares?

But no one has ever said "no" that I know of, and I've yet to ever get an email asking me to stop (that is, I cannot be "told" to stop).



> Is there any sort of benefit for the hobby to have rules that people are expected to pay for appear on-line?



Who defines those rules?  I think OGC should be made available by the publisher after a certain amount of time.  However, it's not part of the license.  And since it's not in the license, it's up to _me_ when I choose to do it, where, and how.



> The marginalization of paid content into free content can't exist without severe consequences to the industry--and the industry is what keeps the hobby alive. If publishers feel themselves being exploited, they will pull out and stop providing cool stuff.



Again, though, this goes back to my opinion that the most of the industry has built itself up on a standard business model that _does not_ take Open Gaming into account.  That is not my fault; It's theirs.


----------



## jeffh (May 3, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Tell me that you would send an email to a Contributor _announcing_ your Use of their OGC, then I'd see no problem with it.  But to ask for permission is silly.
> 
> And none of them to date are on record saying "no".  If anyone reading this thread has been told "no" by any of these people, or any others in fact, than feel free to say so.
> 
> But no one has ever said "no" that I know of, and I've yet to ever get an email asking me to stop (that is, I cannot be "told" to stop).




Possible counterexample:

Jim Ward of Fast Forward Entertainment (the same Jim Ward who contributed to many classic TSR products) once very publicly insinuated that he had been told "no" by GR.  If true this would be the only such case I have heard of.  However, Chris Pramas later commented that this a) wasn't strictly true and b) that there were extenuating circumstances Ward's comments ignored.  

Given Ward's own OGC-related blunders and generally logic-free debating style, I would tend to take Pramas' word over his on anything OGL-related, but I don't actually know what went on, and even what I remember of it is a little fuzzy.  Can anyone fill in the details?  Some of it played out on these boards and might still be there, but they're not searchable for non-paying members like myself so I'd have no hope of finding it.


----------



## The Sigil (May 3, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Go right on ahead and ask permission all _you_ want. Go ahead. Ask away. That doesn't bother any of us in the slightest. Just don't expect anyone else to be as anal about it as you are.



Here's a spin from a publisher... DON'T ask me if you can use my OGC... I simply can't be bothered with "can I use this" and "can I use that" all day.  *I have more important things to do than worry about it*.  Just use it... *that's why I gave you the stuff as OGC in the first place*.  I'm in the business of "publishing," not "licensing."

Now, I would love it if you give me a holler to let me know when you release a product that has my OGC in it, so I can see how my "child" has "grown up," but _that's not mandatory, either_.  

--The Sigil


----------



## barsoomcore (May 3, 2004)

Just to chime in yet again: I think the development of a sensible business plan based on the reality of the OGL has not yet been completely figured out besides the original Dancey plan for WotC -- to sell more PHB's. And that one can't really be considered completely verified yet.

I have to admit I've been surprised at WotC's aggressive product releases -- it seems to run contrary to the basic strategy of OGL -- offload low-profit work onto smaller firms, sit back and watch PHB sales keep on truckin'. But I am not a big clever industry analyst, so there you go.


----------



## Nellisir (May 4, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I have to admit I've been surprised at WotC's aggressive product releases -- it seems to run contrary to the basic strategy of OGL -- offload low-profit work onto smaller firms, sit back and watch PHB sales keep on truckin'. But I am not a big clever industry analyst, so there you go.




Huh...I thought they were doing exactly what they said.  Instead of the old TSR days, when we got 3-5 AD&D products a month, WotC gives us one D&D hardbound every 2 months.  They've scaled back and focused on higher quality products "core" products, instead of trying to fill every niche.

That's my take, anyways.
Cheers
Nell.


----------



## barsoomcore (May 4, 2004)

Yeah, that's probably right. They just seem to be working a lot harder than I really think they need to.

But I'm preternaturally lazy. Which explains why I'm typing on a message board instead of getting out there and making something of myself.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 4, 2004)

jeffh said:
			
		

> Jim Ward of Fast Forward Entertainment (the same Jim Ward who contributed to many classic TSR products) once very publicly insinuated that he had been told "no" by GR. If true this would be the only such case I have heard of. However, Chris Pramas later commented that this a) wasn't strictly true and b) that there were extenuating circumstances Ward's comments ignored.
> 
> Given Ward's own OGC-related blunders and generally logic-free debating style, I would tend to take Pramas' word over his on anything OGL-related, but I don't actually know what went on, and even what I remember of it is a little fuzzy. Can anyone fill in the details? Some of it played out on these boards and might still be there, but they're not searchable for non-paying members like myself so I'd have no hope of finding it.



Yes, I would like a bit more info on that.  And I agree; your assessment, based on my own observations of both companies, is likely correct.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 4, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Here's a spin from a publisher... DON'T ask me if you can use my OGC... I simply can't be bothered with "can I use this" and "can I use that" all day. *I have more important things to do than worry about it*. Just use it... *that's why I gave you the stuff as OGC in the first place*. I'm in the business of "publishing," not "licensing."



This...  This...  This is just beautiful, man.  Thank you.  >sniff<



> Now, I would love it if you give me a holler to let me know when you release a product that has my OGC in it, so I can see how my "child" has "grown up," but _that's not mandatory, either_.



Y'know, I _do_ have some stuff on my "to use" list that's got your name attached.  I'll gladly contact you on release if that's what you'd really like.  However, I wouldn't consider anything ported into Aedon as "grown up"...  Cloned and genetically altered would be closer to the matter.  But, sure, no problem.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 4, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Just to chime in yet again: I think the development of a sensible business plan based on the reality of the OGL has not yet been completely figured out besides the original Dancey plan for WotC -- to sell more PHB's. And that one can't really be considered completely verified yet.



Y'know, every time I read that, it makes me wonder.  I mean, obviously the OGL alone doesn't promote PHB sales.  Considering things like _Arcana Unearthed_, _M&M_, _Conan_, _Slain_, _Engel_, and other OGL-only products provide alternates to PHB-style characters and character advancement, I'd say the "task" of promoting PHB sales (or, alternatively, _Modern_) falls on the d20STL.  Of course, those PHB-independant products obviously promotes further popularity and use of the d20 System, but only the d20STL _requires_ mention of the PHB or _d20 Modern_ as something necessary for play.

I think that's another thing to consider: OGL Products that "pull away" from WotC's baseline products (_D&D_ and _Modern_) are becoming more numerous and, with each incarnation, more popular.  There are entire games out there that can be played without anyone in the group even owning a PHB (and no, I don't mean using the SRD as a cheap substitute, but games that are completely stand-alone).  Even if I wasn't big on my own home-brew, I could still easily pick up _any_ of these other games and _never_ look in WotC's direction again.

So I gotta ask: Those of you that believe OGC extractions might "scare off" WotC or result in a "closed" 4E, what are your opinions of OGL-only products?  As each of these reduces the appearant "need" for the _Player's Handbook_ by producing games that are independant of the Core Rulebooks in-total, making new methods of Character Creation and Level Advancement available (some of them OGC and some of them not), wouldn't these be far more impacting of WotC's view of the OGL?  Do you believe that WotC would be more put-off by an extraction of OGC from _Unearthed Arcana_ than they were by a book that was promoted as an "alternate _Player's Handbook_" by their own former employee?


----------



## Jarf (May 5, 2004)

*Follow the money*

Hi everybody, new to posting at EN World.  Here are my two cents (from a small publisher/author point of view).  I don't presume to speak for anyone else, but these are my thoughts and experiences:



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Although I'm not involved in any of these projects, I'll note that:
> 
> * At least one major 3rd-party book is being turned into an "SRD" by readers, with the blessings of the publisher, no less.  (I can't immediately recall which, but it is linked to in this thread.)
> * Many more people own UA than any given 3rd-party book, with the possible exceptions of some of the very early products.  This makes it much easier to get enough people together to gather the OGC.




Once a third-party publisher's initial print run (probably 800 to 2000 copies for a small publisher) is sold out, I don't see any reason why the publisher would have a problem with an SRD being developed.  Reprints are more expensive since you probably aren't printing as many.

I can't speak for WOTC (since I have no connection to them), but I suspect that for DnD to remain viable, it has to produce revenue by way of selling hardcovers.  There's probably a (financial) reason they don't sell the other stuff - 50 page modules aren't big money makers.

For a small publisher, margins are tight in this business; releasing substantial amounts of OGC material for free (online, for instance) just isn't an option until the production costs (at least) are covered - not unless you have some other source of income.  Once the product is sold-out (or almost sold-out), the situation changes.

Keep in mind that although someone probably won't print out and use a 1000 page SRD, they very well might do the same for a 50 or 100 page sourcebook or module.

For what it is worth, I'm not in this for the money - I have a "day job".

----

As a sidenote, people have mentioned the "spirit" of Open-Game.  To me, that "spirit" means:

- you can borrow Open concepts and ideas and incorporate them into your own work, or copy snippets for personal use.  I haven't done this yet but would certainly let the publisher know first - I would hope that other publishers did the same.  Courtesy is not without value.

"Spirit" doesn't mean (to me):

- you should copy and use the entire contents of a book, minus the Product Indentity, to avoid paying ten or twenty bucks.  A man's gotta eat, after all.


----------



## Cergorach (May 5, 2004)

Jarf said:
			
		

> As a sidenote, people have mentioned the "spirit" of Open-Game.  To me, that "spirit" means:
> 
> - you can borrow Open concepts and ideas and incorporate them into your own work, or copy snippets for personal use.  I haven't done this yet but would certainly let the publisher know first - I would hope that other publishers did the same.  Courtesy is not without value.
> 
> ...



For us who work on such a 'project', it isn't about 'free stuff' it's about:
- utility (searchable text, copyable text, etc.)
- standards (avoiding dozens of different rules that cover the same thing)
- accessibility (electronic formats allow different means of accessing them, rules can be 'read' by blind people)
- availability (some good books are out of print, releasing OGC prevents scarry ebay prices)

I'm also of the opinion that there are way to many 'publishers' out there that are putting out substandard products. Releasing good OGC verbatim means that there will be a lot of substandard 'publishers' that won't sell their crappy stuff, eventually getting it that they should stay away from 'publishing', making more room for the good publishers. Also by releasing OGC from crappy publishers means that people will see what kind of crap they are getting before they buy. This might seem outrageous, but if applied correctly might make the D20 market a lot more attractive for quality publishers. Some people still curse the day that Fast Forward Entertainment was summoned to the D20 market by a Malkavian, if they had only known what they where buying...


----------



## Aaron2 (May 5, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Y'know, every time I read that, it makes me wonder.  I mean, obviously the OGL alone doesn't promote PHB sales.  Considering things like _Arcana Unearthed_, _M&M_, _Conan_, _Slain_, _Engel_, and other OGL-only products provide alternates to PHB-style characters and character advancement, I'd say the "task" of promoting PHB sales (or, alternatively, _Modern_) falls on the d20STL.  Of course, those PHB-independant products obviously promotes further popularity and use of the d20 System, but only the d20STL _requires_ mention of the PHB or _d20 Modern_ as something necessary for play.




As the market leader, D&D gets a high percentage of RPG sales regardless of what is driving the market. At least that's what Ryan Dancy's research found. So, even if V:TM is was creating the buzz in the market, D&D sales increased.

While it might be possible for a group to play multiple d20 games without ever buying a PHB, I just don't see it happening. Gamers tend to be collectors first. 

As for 4e. I'd be suprised if it wasn't OGL since they would have a hard time getting players to migrate. WotC relies on 3rd parties to developed the stuff that they need but isn't cost effective to do themselves (adventures, questionable licenses etc).



> I think that's another thing to consider: OGL Products that "pull away" from WotC's baseline products (_D&D_ and _Modern_) are becoming more numerous and, with each incarnation, more popular.




I really hope this isn't the case. As OGL product stray further and further from D&D, I lose interest. I'm a huge REH fan but passed on Conan because they changed too much (esp. since I don't agree with most of the changes). Same with Judge Dredd. Unfortunately, we'll never know how well a d20 Conan would have sold if it was compatable and balanced for normal D&D play. I would have bought it.


Aaron


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 5, 2004)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> As the market leader, D&D gets a high percentage of RPG sales regardless of what is driving the market. At least that's what Ryan Dancy's research found. So, even if V:TM is was creating the buzz in the market, D&D sales increased.



Ah, yes...  I forgot about that particular spin on things.  Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## Jarf (May 5, 2004)

*What it is about and such*



			
				Cergorach said:
			
		

> For us who work on such a 'project', it isn't about 'free stuff' it's about:
> - utility (searchable text, copyable text, etc.)
> - standards (avoiding dozens of different rules that cover the same thing)
> - accessibility (electronic formats allow different means of accessing them, rules can be 'read' by blind people)
> ...




Well, if that's why you're doing it, I guess that's what the "spirit" of OGC means to you.  Your points all sound pretty reasonable to me.  Please note that I never said that I thought you were doing it for "free stuff" - all I was saying was that if somone was doing it for that reason, it wasn't in _what I consider to be_ the "spirit" of OGC.  It is all just my opinion, anyway - people are free to do as they please (within the limits of just laws, of course).  Gamers tend to be a pretty independent and opinionated group and I wouldn't dream of trying to force my opinion (or will) on any of them. 

Personally, I'm glad WOTC put most of the book out as OGC - that allows us to consider the incorporation of some great mechanics (e.g. sanity) into future products.

I personally owe WOTC some gratitude anyway - without OGL, very few people would be producing anything.  Some folks may not think it is the best system, but it is an OPEN system.  I can't remember many small publishers in the late 70s and 80s putting out DnD compatible materials - Judges Guild is about the only one that comes to mind, although a few small companies did put out modules (where hit points were referred to as htk [hits-to-kill] and such nonsense).  As a result, I've got a closet full of completely unrelated RPGs that rarely get touched (Runequest, Traveller, GURPs, Call of Cthulhu, Thieves Guild, etc).  Back then, even if there was a great system (I love Chaosium's), it was proprietary and therefore off-limits.

I agree with you about substandard publishers - unfortunately, mediocre businesses exist in every sector of life.  One of the primary reasons we decided to produce our own stuff was because we were dissatisfied with what we were seeing - we wanted "more realistic" elements than the market was providing.

However - that said, one person's "crap" is another person's treasure.  For example, I wouldn't dream of telling a munchkin or power-gamer who prefers playing minotaur sorcerers with pierced tongues and +25 mithril horns of virility that they are wrong - they just like something different.  Neither would I dream of becoming a member of the Planetary Publishing Police, dedicated to eradicating "crappy publishers" everywhere   Between my professional career, running a couple side-businesses, writing, my family, and gaming, I just don't have the time (or interest) - if I don't like something, I either a) won't buy it or b) if I already bought it, will be much more cautious when buying future products from that publisher.  But if policing the shelves is somone's bag, more power to them.  No skin off my back - if someone likes what I'm selling, they'll buy it.  If not, they won't, regardless of the existance of OGC/OGL/PI/GNU/CL.  Free will.

I do have the advantage of commuting through Orlando almost every month, where I can peruse the shelves of Sci-Fi City to determine which products look like they're worth the money - I might well have a different viewpoint if I were buying everything sight-unseen through Amazon (or somewhere like that).

To summarize:  I suspect that if a publisher keeps producing "crap", the market will take care of them sooner or later, with or without my help.  Most of the small publishers are probably just fulfilling a personal goal or dream, anyway, rather than trying to create an industry-swallowing behemoth.


----------



## kenjib (May 5, 2004)

Jarf said:
			
		

> As a sidenote, people have mentioned the "spirit" of Open-Game.  To me, that "spirit" means:
> 
> - you can borrow Open concepts and ideas and incorporate them into your own work, or copy snippets for personal use.  I haven't done this yet but would certainly let the publisher know first - I would hope that other publishers did the same.  Courtesy is not without value.
> 
> ...




Do you think the Green Ronin pocket phb breaks the spirit of open-game?  How about the folks selling the d20 SRD in pdf format?


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 5, 2004)

Jarf said:
			
		

> Please note that I never said that I thought you were doing it for "free stuff" - all I was saying was that if somone was doing it for that reason, it wasn't in _what I consider to be_ the "spirit" of OGC.



True, but allow me to bring up a point: If I'm transcribing it, I have it.  It's hardly free if it's bought and paid for.  Granted, some people might _want_ an extraction for the sake of getting free stuff.  But those of us _doing_ extractions have obtained the material at standard cost.

Admittedly, someone _could_ obtain a pirated copy and do an extraction, and no one could tell the difference; I would agree that this is a "double-wrong", as the extraction would be used by others in good-faith that everything about the document (*which includes origins*) was on the up-and-up.  I would likely be _very_ vocal about making such a thing known should I ever learn about it.


----------



## Jarf (May 5, 2004)

kenjib said:
			
		

> Do you think the Green Ronin pocket phb breaks the spirit of open-game? How about the folks selling the d20 SRD in pdf format?



Hmmm. Tricky...

No, in my point of view GR (or is it Mongoose?) producing the pocket phb (and other people selling the pdf) doesn't break "the spirit of open-game". Here's why:

From the SRD FAQ , about halfway down the page.

Q: Could I publish the whole thing?
A: Sure. If you think someone would be willing to pay for it, you're more than welcome to try.


GR is filling a void by providing materials (the SRD) that are already available on-line for free (and were placed there by the original publisher, no less). To me, that isn't the same as stripping out every drop of OGC from an existing product and reselling it under a different title.

Whether enough people are willing to pay for the pocket phb to make it worth publishing remains to be seen - I personally think it is a pretty good idea, although I don't see myself buying one. I don't generally game in tight spaces and don't mind lugging a full-sized book around. I usually use the electronic SRD when I'm writing, anyway, to avoid accidental PI references.

Besides, if I post the text of a book on-line and flat-out tell people that they are free to print it out and sell it, I can't really complain when they do. I think the SRD materials are a special case, in any event, since they are the backbone of the whole Open Game concept.

To summarize: It believe it _is _your right to do _whatever _you want with OGC, within the bounds of your personal ethical code.


----------



## Jarf (May 5, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> True, but allow me to bring up a point: If I'm transcribing it, I have it.  It's hardly free if it's bought and paid for.  Granted, some people might _want_ an extraction for the sake of getting free stuff.  But those of us _doing_ extractions have obtained the material at standard cost.
> 
> Admittedly, someone _could_ obtain a pirated copy and do an extraction, and no one could tell the difference; I would agree that this is a "double-wrong", as the extraction would be used by others in good-faith that everything about the document (*which includes origins*) was on the up-and-up.  I would likely be _very_ vocal about making such a thing known should I ever learn about it.




Sure, and I'm all for extractions.  What I'm talking about is copying an entire book, minus half-a-page worth of PI.  To me (and my code of ethics), that is wrong.  The situation changes a bit once the product is out of print.  Of course, that is my opinion, and no one else has to agree with it.


----------



## kenjib (May 6, 2004)

Jarf said:
			
		

> Besides, if I post the text of a book on-line and flat-out tell people that they are free to print it out and sell it, I can't really complain when they do.




But by licensing material out under the OGL, the publisher actually is flat out telling people that they are free to print it out and sell (or give away) the open content.  It's right there in the license.  Every book published says this explicitly, whether or not it says so in a redundant FAQ on a web page somewhere.  So why are people complaining now when people want to do that with Unearthed Arcana?



			
				Jarf said:
			
		

> I think the SRD materials are a special case, in any event, since they are the backbone of the whole Open Game concept.




Well, there's no real arguing with that point either way.  One can agree with it or not.  I would say that the OGL is bigger than the SRD, and I think The Sigil has done a good job of explaining why.


----------



## Jarf (May 6, 2004)

kenjib said:
			
		

> But by licensing material out under the OGL, the publisher actually is flat out telling people that they are free to print it out and sell (or give away) the open content. It's right there in the license. Every book published says this explicitly, whether or not it says so in a redundant FAQ on a web page somewhere. So why are people complaining now when people want to do that with Unearthed Arcana?
> 
> Well, there's no real arguing with that point either way. One can agree with it or not. I would say that the OGL is bigger than the SRD, and I think The Sigil has done a good job of explaining why.



Sure, I've read some of The Sigil's posts, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with him.  I'm really not trying to argue a point here, anyway (I hope I've made that clear in previous posts); I'm just trying to _express_ my point of view as a small publisher/author, not _ram_ my point of view down anyone's throat.  The posts within this thread are interesting with predominately rational and well thought-out arguments from both sides.

Believe it or not, these discussions may influence some of what we do - for example, based on feedback (or information gleaned) from discussions like this one, we may be more inclined to offer sections of our products as on-line OGC once the initial run has turned a profit.  Monsters, skills, feats, things like that.

This is all off-topic from the original point of the thread, anyway  .  I still haven't figured out if the U.A. SRD is on-line or not...

To address your first point last: I realize OGL allows people to copy and give away the open content.  The "Ultimate" guides from Mongoose are a good example of a publisher taking advantage of this.  But - those guides contain bits and pieces of other works, not large chunks of them.  I personally wouldn't copy and post the entirity of someone else's product (_especially_ one that still has available stock) because I know how much effort (and, more to the point, money) it takes to actually produce and distribute a printed game supplement - kind of like the "priceless" credit card commercials, once you finish.  That said, I realize some people are going to take advantage of the OGL to strip out OGC.  That is their perogative, and I understand that completely.

UA seems like an odd-case anyway - seems like half of the thing is just ripped out of Call of Cthulhu, or d20 Star Wars, or d20 Modern, or even other publisher's works.

If you don't agree with what I'm saying, that's fine with me.  It is, after all, a free country (more or less).


----------



## Cergorach (May 6, 2004)

Jarf said:
			
		

> Sure, I've read some of The Sigil's posts, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with him.  I'm really not trying to argue a point here, anyway (I hope I've made that clear in previous posts); I'm just trying to _express_ my point of view as a small publisher/author, not _ram_ my point of view down anyone's throat.



Oh!!! I suddenly know what to call my next sword: "Point of View". ;-)



			
				Jarf said:
			
		

> The posts within this thread are interesting with predominately rational and well thought-out arguments from both sides.



I just wished that same people would stop throwing the same arguments at each other...



			
				Jarf said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, these discussions may influence some of what we do - for example, based on feedback (or information gleaned) from discussions like this one, we may be more inclined to offer sections of our products as on-line OGC once the initial run has turned a profit.  Monsters, skills, feats, things like that.



Allright! Finally this headache... Erm, thread is starting to make some publishers think about how they'll deal with OGC and actually post their thoughts...



			
				Jarf said:
			
		

> This is all off-topic from the original point of the thread, anyway  .  I still haven't figured out if the U.A. SRD is on-line or not...



As far as i know it isn't yet. 

Finally someone that isn't trying to convince the rest of the world that his "Point of View" is the only "Point of View"...


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 6, 2004)

Jarf said:
			
		

> This is all off-topic from the original point of the thread, anyway  . I still haven't figured out if the U.A. SRD is on-line or not...



Well, I will relate this:

Earlier in the thread I indicated that I was nearly done with Sanity and that anyone wanting the extraction should email me for it.

_No one_ did so.

A little later, I indicated that I was extracting Taint and gave the same invite.

Same lack of response.

Which, one might say, puts a big hole in the entire "people just want free stuff" theory since no one's contacting me for the free stuff.

As is, I don't think there will be one until one of the people that did an OCR scan gets their's online.  They're the only ones interested in doing the entire thing themselves with the means of doing it easily and quickly.  Granted, I would _still_ like to get such a copy to seriously cut-down on transcription time (hint hint), but for now I just gotta do the parts I am using the same way I've done it for the last decade: Type, type, type, type, type...


----------



## woodelf (May 6, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> This part of the license _protects_ the OGC re-user from being told "no".  Thus, any implied "noble ideal" to contact the original contributor of the material is nothing more than semantics; it's asking the OGC re-user to accept the "term or condition" that the originating source approves, when such approval is entirely unneccessary.
> 
> I mean, honestly, if I ask, then what stops the original source from saying "no" for what ever reason.  Maybe they don't want their material posted?  Maybe they don't like the theme of my setting?  Maybe they don't like me from my posts?  And if I'm told "no", am I legally obligated to accept "no" for an answer or can I reproduce the material anyway?  And if I can ignore the "no", why the hell am I asking in the first place?  After all, by the terms of the license, the "Contributor" has no right whatsoever to say "no" because they have already "contributed" their work.




That's why i don't ask. It just doesn't make much sense to ask permission to reuse material that has been designated reusable. Otherwise, if i ask and the creator says "no", then what? If i intended to reuse the OGC regardless of their answer, then why ask? And if i'm gonna get permission anyway, why limit myself to OGC? I may as well ask to use some of the closed content, too.

Now, i might contact someone to see if they're willing to provide the OGC in digital form, but i'm not gonna bother asking just to reuse the OGC.


----------



## woodelf (May 6, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> As for WotC's PI designation, I see a 4th possibility: on occassion, I stumble upon something in the SRD that isn't supposed to be there (page numbers, book references, etc.), so the PI designation could very well just be a safety net for oversights in the pre-SRD scrub down, preventing terms/titles from becoming OGC because of an editing error.  Although it's not a perfect example, we can consider the fact that, because of certain spells, the Shadow Plane, Ethereal Plane, Elemental Planes, Astral Plane and Outer Planes _in concept and name_ were already OGC long before the MotP material was ported into the SRD.  I also recall, after Mind Flayers, Displacer Beasts, and other critters were removed from the Draft SRD and thus never really released, that "final" versions of some things made mention of "the skin of a Displacer Beast" and another section (the _summon [X]_ spells, I do believe) still listed creatures that weren't OGC (in short, the _names_ of these things _are_ OGC because they appeared in the released SRD, but the things themselves are not).
> 
> Does the "safety net" theory seem close to mark?




I dunno if it's their intention, but i'll accept it as a possible interpretation. With the caveat that, under that interpretation, any bits that are listed in the PI declaration and *don't* appear in the D20SRD *aren't* PI--they would be "erroneous" or "irrelevant" [depending on your interpretation of the license] declarations. IOW, if they succeeded (and, IIRC, they did), the PI declaration becomes moot.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 6, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> That's why i don't ask. It just doesn't make much sense to ask permission to reuse material that has been designated reusable. Otherwise, if i ask and the creator says "no", then what?



Although this is a case-by-case basis, but if said creator said "no" to you despite the fact that he already declared the content in question OGC, it's pretty much out of his hand ... until you violate the OGL.

Your asking him is merely a courtesy call, as Monte Cook's Book of OGL Etiquette have stated.




> If i intended to reuse the OGC regardless of their answer, then why ask?



Again, courtesy call. Don't judge ALL OGC contributors on the action of a few misguided ones.




> And if i'm gonna get permission anyway, why limit myself to OGC? I may as well ask to use some of the closed content, too.



If you wish to use certain closed content, go ahead.

Granted, I believe that Andy Collins jumped the gun regarding the reprinting of OGC in _UA._ In a perfect world, we gamers are not going to copy the OGC merely to distribute it because we believe it would hurt the sale of the _UA_ book and thus hurt the company's revenue and their employees' income. In a perfect world, only publishers should make full use of the OGC for whatever products they wish to sell on the market. But it's not a perfect world. But as much as there are irresponsible individuals in this world (both adults and minors), there are responsible individuals in this world.

The only thing WotC can do is provide the best product on the market at an affordable price that few gamers would dare to copy and distribute, and monitor OGL usage (seek a license violation quota, like traffic violation quota that local cops do).


----------



## woodelf (May 6, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> Oh I know it won't stand up in court. I just don't feel any moral compunction to follow the letter of a law where it doesn't agree with the spirit of the law, or where the law is unjust.




OK. The spirit of the WotC OGL is sharing content, therefore i can ignore the PI and trademark clauses, because the letter of those parts violates the spirit of the WotC OGL, which is supposed to be an open-content license.

You see, that's the danger of "spirit-over-letter" arguments: the spirit is a nebulous concept, and reasonable people may disagree over it.



			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> In the case of speeding, the spirit of the law is clearly to keep everyone safe on the roads, so while I feel morally obligated to drive a safe speed, I don't feel morally obligated to stay under the speed limit. Oh, and BTW, people have gone before a judge and gotten off on speeding violations because it was broad daylight with light traffic, and they were only speeding "a little" at least here in California.




And it is my understanding that in a lot of jurisdictions (certainly in this one), speeding tickets are often reduced, if you make the court appearance, to the amount you were exceeding traffic flow, rather than the speed limit. But that's probably not a good example, because it's tainted with all sorts of cultural baggage. Frex, around here speeding tickets are routinely reduced in this manner (even for repeat offenders), even when traffic flow was 10-15mph over the speed limit. And speed limits (and red lights) are very poorly enforced to begin with. Unlike pretty much every other traffic law. In short, you can be weaving in and out of rush-hour traffic, doing 10mph faster than traffic flow and 20mph over the speedlimit, and get the ticket reduced. But when i ran a stop sign due to extraordinary circumstances, regained control of the car maybe 20' past the stop line, only risked the actions that caused my mistake after having ascertained that the only other vehicle within several blocks was on the other side of a divided highway more than a block away, and did all this with a sparkling-clean record, i couldn't get them to reduce it it all, much less to a warning. Setting aside personal opinions of the foolishness of my actions, or my culpability, it is demonstrable statistical fact that what i did was *far* less dangerous to myself or society than speeding in heavy traffic. Yet our society is pretty laid back about speeding. So it's probably a really poor example.

Back to the spirit-vs.-letter argument: what if the actual spirit of speedlimit laws isn't to keep people safe, but to establish culpability? IOW, if i'm not speeding and someone steps out into the road in such a way that i can't stop, it's not my fault because i "wasn't doing anything wrong", but if i'm speeding, it is my fault. I honestly believe that's an equally-reasonable interpretation of the spirit behind speed limits, but it leads to different "appropriate" behavior than the one you put forth.


----------



## woodelf (May 7, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *Correction:* _Spycraft_ is not a *completely* closed system. At the time of the book's release, only one game content remained closed and are used with permission by Wizards of the Coast: VP/WP health system. But for the most part, mainly the ruleset, _Spycraft_ is a third-party _d20_ product in compliance with the OGL.




I let this slide the first time, 'cause it's just not relevant to the argument. But, if we're gonna get it right, i'll point out that it's not at all clear that the WP/VP system that AEG got permission from WotC to use in Spycraft remained closed content. According to the OGC/PI declarations, it is OGC. While it's true that there's a separate statement acknowledging special permission to use that subsystem, there's nothing in that statement to imply (much less state outright) that AEG didn't have authority to contribute it as OGC. So, while it is quite possible that WotC intended it to remain closed at that time, it appears that AEG didn't understand that, or goofed, and, regardless, rendered the content open. And, since, as far as i can find, no one at WotC or AEG has ever officially errataed that, i'd say that, even if Unearthed Arcana hadn't come out, that subsystem is definitely OGC by now. (i'll accept that there should be some allowance made for errors. But even a known error uncorrected for 3+ years (in this industry) pretty much has to be irrevocable by now--and, for all we know, it's not an error.)


----------



## woodelf (May 7, 2004)

Setanta said:
			
		

> @barsoomcore
> 
> No, just having 4E be different would force a choice- use that, or keep using 3.5 stuff. Certainly there is nothing to would make me "have to" use 4E, but I would have to choose whether I was going to use it or not.




or not choose, you know. I've played 3 different systems in the last month (you caught me at campaign-transition time), and i mean *completely* different: Icon (ST: DS9 RPR), Four Colors al Fresco, and Big Eyes Small Mouth. One of my coworkers is currently involved in weekly or bi-weekly D&D3E, D&D3.5E, Fading Suns, and maybe one other game. And so on. Even if you only play one game at a time, you can still play different games when you switch campaigns.



> OK. I would rather see publishers keep producing OGC in the hopes that more publishers will actually use other publishers OGC and expand on it. Take mass combat rules. I like Eden's system, but it's not perfect. It would be nice to see another publisher take their system and flesh it out, just as an example. That obviously couldn't happen if Fields of Blood didn't have a lot of OGC (though it's not all OGC, unfortunately).
> 
> If they never do another UA, I doubt it would hurt. If they make 4E closed, it would hurt, in my opinion. We seem disagree there; I think we're at a point we'll have to agree to disagree.




And that's one of the biggest reasons i don't care if D&D disappears: it's not participating in the feedback loop. WotC produces lots of OGC, but they don't use it, so the D&D doesn't build upon the evolutions in the general D20 System community. If anything, it's holding development back: there's a powerful incentive to remain compatible with D&D, and that may stifle the more radical innovations.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 8, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> I let this slide the first time, 'cause it's just not relevant to the argument. But, if we're gonna get it right, i'll point out that it's not at all clear that the WP/VP system that AEG got permission from WotC to use in Spycraft remained closed content. According to the OGC/PI declarations, it is OGC. While it's true that there's a separate statement acknowledging special permission to use that subsystem, there's nothing in that statement to imply (much less state outright) that AEG didn't have authority to contribute it as OGC. So, while it is quite possible that WotC intended it to remain closed at that time, it appears that AEG didn't understand that, or goofed, and, regardless, rendered the content open. And, since, as far as i can find, no one at WotC or AEG has ever officially errataed that, i'd say that, even if Unearthed Arcana hadn't come out, that subsystem is definitely OGC by now. (i'll accept that there should be some allowance made for errors. But even a known error uncorrected for 3+ years (in this industry) pretty much has to be irrevocable by now--and, for all we know, it's not an error.)



While the argument is moot now, prior to _UA,_ no one dared challenge the vague wording and tried to use the VP/WP system derived from _Spycraft_ successfully. I believe the folk at Citizen Game wanted to use it -- albeit using different terms: Body and Vigor -- for _Sidewinder: The Wild West Adventures_ but WotC denied them. Of course, rather than letting the court interpret that small print, they decided on an alternative health system.

It would be interesting had it gone to court -- at least it would or would not prove the flaw you pointed out -- but we'll never know now, won't we?


----------



## Ranger REG (May 8, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> And that's one of the biggest reasons i don't care if D&D disappears: it's not participating in the feedback loop. WotC produces lots of OGC, but they don't use it, so the D&D doesn't build upon the evolutions in the general D20 System community. If anything, it's holding development back: there's a powerful incentive to remain compatible with D&D, and that may stifle the more radical innovations.



Hmm. I think it's what every publisher trying to stay in the RPG business think about every time they want to release something new and innovative: to risk introducing some new innovation that may or may not take with the _D&D_ fanbase, or remain conservatively safe within the strict adherence of the _D&D_ ruleset, making it more palatable to _D&D_ gamers.

But let's face it. The majority of the _D&D_ fanbase really do not care about _d20,_ SRD, and OGL. They care about only one brand: _D&D._ While there are open-minded _D&D_ gamers, it's too few to make any one line profitably successful as _D&D_ line.

Can you really blame WotC for the mindset of their fanbase?


----------



## barsoomcore (May 8, 2004)

This thread just won't die, thanks to the patient efforts of hard-working souls like woodelf, Bendris Noulg, Ranger REG and others. Like me. Give us a hand folks!  

Seriously:


			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Can you really blame WotC for the mindset of their fanbase?



You know, I kinda can. It's not impossible to think that D&D could be seen as something a bit more modular, a bit more customizable than it is.

Sure, everyone uses Windows (except me), but everyone has a custom desktop picture. Lots of people have custom system colours, cursors, etc, etc....

I'm not saying that would be the best plan or anything, I'm just saying, yeah, to some non-zero degree the "mindset of the fanbase" (I'm just going to pretend that's a non-problematic idea) IS the responsibility of WotC.

You know. Sort of.


----------



## woodelf (May 8, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> Sigil touched a subject that has been on my mind a lot the last ten years, patronage vs. copyright. As Sir Thomas Babington MacAuley said, copyright is a neccesary 'evil' that was used to let creative talent make a living. When portrayed this way, i can only say, that it was a good move at the time. These days however, it's not used to let creative talent make a living, it's used to let companies make profit, instead of making the people that actually wrote have _compensation_ for their work. Note the use of the word _compensation_, _compensation_ as in payment for services rendered, and not as in payment for taking an idea hostage and profiting from it.



If i could make just one change in copyright law, and that was expected to "fix everything", it'd be to only allow the person(s) that created an idea to hold the copyright. Companies may not hold copyrights. Descendents/inheritors may not hold copyrights. Governments may not hold copyrights. Universities may not hold copyirghts. A company can license a copyright, but only for the life of the creator, at most. And my gut reaction is to also, without explicit contracts to the contrary, only allow licenses from employees to last for the duration of the employment, though i haven't really thought through all the ramifications on that one.



> Copyright was instituted to let creative talent make a decent living, because they couldn't get a decent patronage from the rich and where very limited in the exposure their work could get before being published. [snip]




I think the concern with patronage (vice copyright) was not so much not making a sufficient living, but rather censorship. But maybe it was both.



> The fact alone that such a large portion of the worlds population is guilty of 'pirating' should tell you that there's something wrong with the current copyright laws. The problem now is that 'pirating' is actually promoting the idea that everything is free and the people that rely on patronage are suffering for that.




I think that is jumping to conclusions. There are a *lot* of possible explanations for why so much piracy goes on. I won't go into a lengthy sidetrack discussion here, but suffice it to say that, i think copyright could be "fixed" and it would have almost no impact on piracy. There're undoubtedly lots of factors, but i think the single biggest cause is not philosophical attitudes on IP, but simple distance: the pirates are socially distanced from those they hurt, and so can easily ignore it, and, moreover, they are emotionally distanced even from those they know they're hurting, because they're faceless immortal corporations, rather than people. I'd be happy to discuss the matter, but this isn't the thread for it.


----------



## woodelf (May 8, 2004)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I am specifically targeting anybody who dumps entire published content online without either adding some value to it, and who doesn't care about being nice to the companies or creators who provide these rules, but just wants to get stuff free.




What about this:
i'm currently working on an extensive project: a complete "D&D 'Done Right'". So it'll have at least as much content as the 3 core D&D3.5E books. It may be released for free online--for the pragmatic reason that i don't think i could go head-to-head with D&D, even if i had gorgeous art and beautiful books and the best rules in the world. But i can only afford an excellent layout, probably no art, and as a PDF. And while i expect my total ruleset to be better than D&D3.5E at doing "D&D-style fantasy" (i wouldn't be doing this, otherwise), i know that that's not an objective truth, and it _certainly_ won't be "the best rules in the world".

Now, all that was just background. Now we get to the question. I'm starting with a mix of Spycraft and Arcana Unearthed for my rulesbase, rather than the D20SRD. So, let's say i have the entirety of the feats, skills, and spells chapters from Arcana Unearthed included. Now, a non-generous reading of its OGC/PI declarations would force me to rename every single feat and spell, but i could otherwise use them verbatim. So, do you think i would have done anything, hmmm.... unkind? non-generous? inconsiderate?--i'm not really sure the term, here, but hopefully you get the meaning--if i were to do this: release essentially the bulk of the new rules of Arcana Unearthed for free, online? Does it count as adding value, in your opinion, that i'm giving all the various rules widgets OGC labels, where before they had none? I mean, from the standpoint of other reusers, i'm clearly doing them a favor (especially since coming up with sensible alternatives to such generic names as "stomp" for a feat that lets you stomp the ground is gonna be a bit of a chore). But from the standpoint of the originator, i may actually be doing a disservice: presumably, he didn't want it to be easy to reuse the stuff, or he would've given them usable names. On the gripping hand, i might be making both happy: the creator restricts his widget labels, and everyone else gets labeled widgets. So, any opinion on this? Does it matter if i'm effectively reusing the bulk of a ruleset when that ruleset happens to be one other than the D&D3[.5]E ruleset? Does it matter whether that reused ruleset ends up being 100%, 90%, or 10% of the resulting work? (IOW, is it any more or less of on offense to reproduce 90pp of a 100p work, than to create a 500p work that includes 90pp of a 100p work?)


----------



## barsoomcore (May 8, 2004)

woodelf: your questions are too complicated and weighty for a Friday afternoon, but I'll say this -- when you're done, I want a copy.


----------



## woodelf (May 8, 2004)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Dang it, lost another post.
> 
> Simply put, I don't think putting the OGC contents of UA online as an SRD is legal.  Why?  Because of this:
> 
> ...




First, the license is, here, talking about the designation/definition of OGC. The creator of a work decides what is OGC, not the reuser. When i create some material, i designate some portion of it (possibly 100%) as OGC. This has nothing to do with who reuses it--nobody could reuse it, and it'd still be OGC.  Notice that where it mentions enhancement over prior art is in the definition of OGC, not the definition of "use" or "reuse".

Second, your elipses unintentionally gloss over some serious ambiguities in that clause of the WotC OGL. *if* there is a "must be an enhancement over the prior art" requirement, it applies to the creation of OGC in the first place. In which case, depending on who judges these matters, and how much change is required before it is an "enhancement", the entirety of the D20SRD could be deemed to not meet the requirement--after all, there's basically nothing in it (or D&D3E) that hadn't already been published in RPGs. However, as i alluded to, it's not clear that there is any such requirement. First of all, the "to the degree it is an enhancement..." bit could be referring to the whole clause, or just the category of OGC immediately preceding it. Second, it is not perfectly clear whether rules *must be* OGC, or the drafters just assumed they would be, or they are just the example for the clause, or somewhere in between. Third, it's not entirely clear how the "and anything else designated" bit interacts with the rest of the OGC definition--is the list of things that makes up the bulk of the clause exemplary or definitive? Fourth, the license says in this clause that OGC "means" "the work", yet later on in the license it quite clearly refers to the OGC being a subset of the work. And those are just the problems in that one little clause, and which i can think of off the top of my head and without the license in front of me to look at.

So, short version, two responses to you:
1: i'm quite confident you've misread the license, and the restriction you're quoting applies, if at all, to designation of OGC, not reuse.
2: if you look very closely at the WotC OGL, it gets pretty fuzzy. The more nitpicky you get, the less clear its meaning is. This is *not* a license that i'd gamble on precise interpretation of anything around the edges of what it allows. This is not a license that clearly, incontrovertably spells out everything--far from it. In their zeal to make it "plain English" and "usable by anyone", they threw out the baby (precision) with the bathwater (legalese), leaving us with a morass of ambiguous and contradictory statements, in need of a good English editor, and then a good law editor.


----------



## woodelf (May 8, 2004)

Just nitpicking today:



			
				Tav_Behemoth said:
			
		

> In the case of the UA, the OGL makes the text-hacking legal so long as the scanners nobly put in the extra effort to strip away all copyrighted material/PI from the OCRed text before sharing the fruits of their labor.




That is, "strip away all non-open material from the OCRed text...". There is, generally speaking, no non-copyrighted material in any published RPG book--even the OGC is still copyrighted by the author or publisher. I suspect the term you were looking for there is "closed".



> Even though all d20 releases contain some OGC,



Not all d20 releases contain some OGC: Star Wars D20, Wheel of Time RPG, just to name two off the top of my head.



> and some open content has been made freely available as SRDs, as far as I know no third-party release has been popular enough to inspire text hacking of the print book or customization of the free SRD.




Arcana Unearthed. Spycraft. Possibly Mutants & Masterminds. Oh, and the Anime D20SRD and Mecha SRD have both gotten PDF treatments--and i'm working on them, too.


----------



## woodelf (May 8, 2004)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I'VE JUST LOST ANOTHER HOUR TYPING ANOTHER LOST MESSAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> [snip]
> After 2 years on ENWorld, I've somehow managed to hit the wrong button 4 times in 24 hours and lose 4 posts and about 3 hours.  Frustrated is not quite the word.




What the others said. Though i'd go one further and suggest just working in a text editor, and only pasting it into the message editor when it's all finished. Again, web-based BBSes suck, interface-wise, and are a _huge_ step backwards compared to UseNet newsreaders, or even most email apps. Can vBulletin deliver the content via an NNTP port, too?


----------



## woodelf (May 8, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> The only people that are "gung-ho" are the folks with OCR capability, and they don't seem to be sharing.
> 
> Myself, I'm gung-ho for doing the parts I'm using, of which I'd gladly contribute those parts to anyone compiling an SRD or, for that matter, wants the material for their own works.  As is, though, no one indicated that they wanted Sanity, so while I transcribed it verbatum (minus PI-references to CoC), it's now been edited and chopped-up for Aedon, making it unusuable to anyone not wanting to use my changes (a thing I'll just label as "unlikely").




Out of curiosity, any particular reason you didn't keep a "pristine" copy on your drive, for future reference?

Anyway, i think that's why i haven't pushed that hard on this: i don't really care. See, for the most part, i'm underwhelmed with the content in Unearthed Arcana, same as most WotC books. There are only a couple bits i might even maybe use, and none that i'd use without significant alteration (which makes a verbatim scan that much less useful). And D20 System stuff, save two particular projects, is pretty low on my priority list, in general. I'm just not a crunchy-system person, usually, so i more often get fired up about things like Four Colors al Fresco than a social-centric D20 System. But the latter will probably get finished, to prove it can be done, and 'cause i think it's rather clever. As for the Unearthed Arcana extraction itself: i'd be doing it for gamers, not for me. But the layout, that's for me: i'll jump at almost any chance i get to (1) hone my layout skills, especially in a forum that could garner lots of feedback and critiques and (2) slap The Impossible Dream's name on it, and get us into the gamers' consciousness. So, i'm not gonna buy the book, 'cause i'll likely never use it. And i'll definetely never use enough of it to justify $35--i'll buy the new shoujo BESM supplement, or the latest Ars Magica book, or A|State, instead. So i don't have it to OCR. But, give me the digital text, and i'll jump to it (unless that happens during crunch time for our first book, in which case it'll just have to wait).

Now, if someone wants to collaborate on an SRD extraction of Spycraft, i might be persuaded... (And i'll probably be doing Arcana Unearthed myself, in any case--though i'll, like you, probably only do the bits i'm gonna use.)


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 8, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, any particular reason you didn't keep a "pristine" copy on your drive, for future reference?



Because I've already got two copies of it (CoC and UA) should I ever have the need.


----------



## woodelf (May 8, 2004)

Wasgo said:
			
		

> After reading through the license again, I thought I'd throw in another post. Two little points.
> 
> 1.) Due to it's trademarked nature, the online OGC could not be called the Unearthed Arcana SRD. Unearthed Arcana is a registered trademark of WotC and not OGC.
> 2.) More importantly,
> ...




So call it the "UAD20SRD" or the "D20/UA SRD", or something along those lines. There: no trademark infringement. Or even:


> An Extract of the Open Game Content from a Book of Extensive and Somewhat Mutually Exclusive Rules
> Originally Published in Book Form by the Owner of a System We May Not Name, but Which is Undoubtedly the Most Popular Fantasy Roleplaying Game Currently On the Market, and is Currently in it's Revised Third Edition
> Containing, in its Entirety, the Open Game Content from the Aforementioned Book, Comprising a Multitude of Options for the D20 System



For those of us who are a fan of Victorian publications.

It's really not that hard to get the point across. Oh, and there's one other potential benefit to such an extract: it might "scrub" the resulting content of the PI declaration. That is, it is quite possible that you only are obligated to abide by the PI declarations of works you derive from, not those that the works you derive from derived from. Therefore, if you use an OGC extract of Unearthed Arcana, and do *not* use Unearthed Arcana, you are free to use the word "githyanki". Probably not, mind you, the notion of an astral-dwelling race, brethren and haters of the githzerai, former slaves of the illithids, allies of hellspawn red dragons, and powerful psychics. But you could use the word.


----------



## woodelf (May 8, 2004)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> On topic, I'm interested in UA's Contacts rules, Taint, Players Roll All the Dice, Level-Independant XP Awards, and Magic Rating.
> 
> Yes, I have the book; Yes I want them for a "product"; Yes I will type them in all by my lonesome if I have to and not complain about it; and Yes, it would be easier to share the effort with someone else.  If anyone has these entries already typed up and doesn't mind sharing with me, drop me an email... nellisir at comcast.net




Maybe i'm misremembering, but what is there to "Players Roll All the Dice" to retype? I mean, haven't you pretty much just given the whole rule? (OK, i suppose you should add the "add 11 to all monster stats that would otherwise involve a d20 roll" and "subtract 10 from any PC stats that didn't used to involve a D20 roll". But that's pretty much it.)


----------



## woodelf (May 8, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> Let's assume that you mean Microsoft, Microsoft _was_ one of the biggest opponents of the open source philosophy. Not anymore, it's finally seen the value of opening up some of it's source code. Why? Because it can actually save them money, lots of money. They let a comunity help develop and debug a product and doesn't have to spend the resources to do it themselves. They might not use the GPL or one of it's close relatives, but it is a step in the right direction. It wouldn't suprise me in the least that at one time MS might actually make Windows open source, just not under the GPL.




But they don't let others build on the code; they don't, officially at least, incorporate others' open code into their code; they don't let others see reported bugs (last i heard, at least); they don't let others decide which parts of the code they want to see; and they don't let known bugs get publicized. Point being that, depending on what you consider the "point" of open-source development. Personally, i consider the greater efficiency (especially of debugging) a side-effect--it's just the one that traditional-development companies want to  take advantage of. The point of it, IMHO, is the concept of sharing, and collaboration, and better end products, and just a whole different mindset, one that is about creation, improvement, and credit, rather than about money or monopoly.


----------



## kenjib (May 8, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> For those of us who are a fan of Victorian publications.




That was awesome.  Someone should write up an rpg where all of the books are written in that style.  The title of each chapter would also have to be like this:

"Chapter 1:  In which the ability scores Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are described as well as the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties pertaining thereto and finally the effects such abilities have on the casting of spells, carrying of weight, fighting of combat, and other activities common to the roleplaying game."

That would be a nice touch to a Victorian era rpg game.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 8, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> If i could make just one change in copyright law, and that was expected to "fix everything", it'd be to only allow the person(s) that created an idea to hold the copyright. Companies may not hold copyrights. Descendents/inheritors may not hold copyrights. Governments may not hold copyrights. Universities may not hold copyirghts. A company can license a copyright, but only for the life of the creator, at most. And my gut reaction is to also, without explicit contracts to the contrary, only allow licenses from employees to last for the duration of the employment, though i haven't really thought through all the ramifications on that one.



Hmm. What happens if the creator wishes to relinquish the copyright to a company? Such a law you suggested would expressly forbid that, even if that company will be run by his or her children (which is much like an asset in the estate can be passed down), who should get equal share in the profit of said copyright, rather than designate one (normally the firstborn).

Such a thing would also abolish any and all work-for-hire contracts.


----------



## Cergorach (May 8, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Now, if someone wants to collaborate on an SRD extraction of Spycraft, i might be persuaded... (And i'll probably be doing Arcana Unearthed myself, in any case--though i'll, like you, probably only do the bits i'm gonna use.)



I've already started working on it (i love Spycraft and would love to use it for some other games).

AEG used some very annoying header fonts, my OCR software keeps choking on those (annoying in the feats section). And the designation of OGC leaves much to be desired for (the stuff used from SW needs to be taken out).

I've currently done the scanning of the core book, the computer has 'Read' the entire book, i'm not using the computer to 'Check spelling' (now at page 104), will need to do a manual scan of the ocred book before cutting out everything that isn't OGL.

I've put the Spycraft project on low priority, because it's a big hassle, but if your interested in certain parts i'll take a look if i can fit it in my schedule ;-)


----------



## woodelf (May 9, 2004)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> (On WotC "setting the bar", and yes, I'm wandering off topic...)
> 
> What I don't see, however, are companies as consistently and *broadly* bending the "rules" of d20 as WotC.
> 
> ...




Hmmm...
Your examples seem to contradict your initial statement. Maybe it's just a semantics issue. But you talk about WotC "bending" the rules, and then list a whole bunch of supplements that, with the possible exceptions of OA and Unearthed Arcana, are just taking some of the most basic, core concepts of D&D and exploring them fairly thoroughly: dragons, good, evil, etc. And, IIRC, OA was mostly written by AEG, just published by WotC (much as the DL core book was written by the people who're doing the rest of the new DL line, just published by WotC). That only leaves Unearthed Arcana. And, in some ways, i'd say even it bends the rules less than Spycraft, M&MM, Midnight, CoC D20, or any number of other genre-/setting-specific books. Sure, it collects a bunch of variations in one place, but they're all more-or-less compatible with baseline D&D3.5E--for obvious reasons. IOW, based on the stuff you're praising and dismissing, you don't *want* the rules to really be bent a whole lot--you want stuff that's more-or-less compatible with your existing D&D game. Which is fine--i understand that desire all too well. But it's the antithesis of "bending the 'rules' of D20 [System]".


----------



## woodelf (May 9, 2004)

Just noticed i never actually posted this message. *That* would explain why no one has responded to it.  



			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> As for #2, sure, it's speculation that this behaviour will hurt the industry, but I haven't seen anything to make me think it's illogical speculation. We've seen one publisher speculate that it might hurt his sales. If he perceives it might, chances are others do as well. If a publisher perceives something as being a threat to sales, isn't it logical to assume they might look for ways to avoid it? What if that publisher is WotC, clearly the publisher in the best position to avoid releasing OGC, and clearly the one that would hurt the D20 world the most if they stopped supporting the OGL. It just happens to be a WotC product that started this whole discussion. Thus, I'm concerned.




I haven't read the paper yet, so i don't know know how sound it is, or to what degree it would apply to books, RPG materials, open content, or some combination of the above.  But you might want to take a look at http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf , which is a working paper on the effect of [illegal] music sharing that concludes (in part) that "downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero."

*If* my behavior is representative, gettnig material for free has a net-positive effect on expenditures for the commercial stuff. In fact, if i like it, i'll buy it even if i already have a free copy (legal or illegal), and even if the free copy is of equal quality to the commercial copy. Yes, that's just me, but the reward-the-creator impulse, combined with the word-of-mouth effect, are reasonable explanations for how the free-is-better impulse could fail to decrease sales, overall.

In short, if this study is accurate, then the problem isn't OGC being recirculated, it's publisher's fearing OGC being recirculated. And, therefore, the solution isn't to not recirculate OGC, it's to educate publishers.


----------



## woodelf (May 9, 2004)

kenjib said:
			
		

> I have two points.
> 
> The first is that if so-called ethical use of the OGL requires that you understand some kind of "spirit" that isn't in the word of the license and indeed only exists in the inner circles of some OGL mailing list for publishers or buried two years back on the message board of each respective publisher, then the OGL is a very, very, poorly written legal document and anyone who releases material under it has poor business sense.  If making a free PDF release of all of the open content in Unearthed Arcana is not completely okay, ethical, and uncontested by WotC, then WotC needs to draft up a new revised license and start releasing material under that instead (including re-releasing all prior material, such as the SRDs).




Some of us have been saying this for years. Oh, and the OGL list is open to anyone, so you, too, can hear the plethora of contradictory opinions on what the WotC OGL actually means. The problem isn't so much needing (or not needing) to know the spirit, it's that the license is self-contradictory and/or ambiguous, even before you bring spirit arguments into it.


----------



## woodelf (May 9, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> While the argument is moot now, prior to _UA,_ no one dared challenge the vague wording and tried to use the VP/WP system derived from _Spycraft_ successfully. I believe the folk at Citizen Game wanted to use it -- albeit using different terms: Body and Vigor -- for _Sidewinder: The Wild West Adventures_ but WotC denied them. Of course, rather than letting the court interpret that small print, they decided on an alternative health system.
> 
> It would be interesting had it gone to court -- at least it would or would not prove the flaw you pointed out -- but we'll never know now, won't we?




As i heard it, they weren't told "no" on using VP/WP for Sidewinder, they were told "we'd rather you didn't". Now, that may just be the way whoever says it talks. But it may also indicate what i suspect: they [WotC] knew they couldn't actually *stop* the reuse [legally speaking], whether due to the OGC/PI declarations in Spycraft, or something else. In short, i suspect if they'd just gone ahead and done it, rather than asking WotC's permission, there would've been no negative repurcussions. But, as you say, we'll never know. I know that i was sufficiently confident to put my money where my mouth is. To the degree that i caught myself trying to justify using VP/WP for one project where it really just didn't fit.


----------



## woodelf (May 9, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Hmm. What happens if the creator wishes to relinquish the copyright to a company? Such a law you suggested would expressly forbid that, even if that company will be run by his or her children (which is much like an asset in the estate can be passed down), who should get equal share in the profit of said copyright, rather than designate one (normally the firstborn).



I'm not yet convinced that that would be a bad thing. I could probably be persuaded at allowing transfer of copyright to others, including co-ownership. I'm *very* leery of allowing corporations to own copyrights, however. I can't see anything they couldn't do if they only licensed the materials, and i can see some bad that is avoided this way. In any case, i think if you limited the duration of copyright to the original creator's life (regardless of who it is transferred to), perhaps with a minimum of, say, 10 yrs (in case of late-in-life creations, and to discourage offing people for their ideas), i think it would be a very good thing. 



> Such a thing would also abolish any and all work-for-hire contracts.




Yep. and that's a *great* thing, IMHO.


----------



## kenjib (May 9, 2004)

I think the life of the creator is too long for copyrights.  That could potentially tie something up for 50, 60 years or more.  By the time it becomes public domain it likely has lost all relevance, so even having copyright last only for the life of the creator still destroyes the positive feedback effect that opening things up to the public domain would provide.  I think the original expiration of 7 years was fairly reasonable.

I also think it's very sad that Disney is the primary lobbyist for copyright extension and litigation considering that everything they did in the early days was pulled straight out of the public domain or otherwise copying other people's material, including Mickey Mouse who got his start in Steamboat Willie, which was a parody of Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill, and pretty much all of their feature films.  In the ideal world of today's Disney, a company like the early Disney would never have been able to exist.


----------



## woodelf (May 9, 2004)

kenjib said:
			
		

> I think the life of the creator is too long for copyrights.  That could potentially tie something up for 50, 60 years or more.  By the time it becomes public domain it likely has lost all relevance, so even having copyright last only for the life of the creator still destroyes the positive feedback effect that opening things up to the public domain would provide.  I think the original expiration of 7 years was fairly reasonable.




I'm not suggesting it should be equal to the life of the creator. I'm suggesting it should be *limited by* the life of the creator. While it probably should be shorter (maybe noticably shorter), it definitely shouldn't be longer.

As for an actual number: i have very mixed ideas. On the one hand, things have accelerated in a lot of ways, so something on the order of a decade makes perfect sense. i think when copyright was first enacted, 7yrs was really too short, because books (in particular) had a viable life considerably longer than that. But, as the functional life of IP has gotten shorter, the law has made copyright protections longer. It's almost as if the lobbyists think that they can fight the trend towards shorter and shorter relevancy periods for new works by extending copyright--as if that will somehow magically boost long-term sales.  On the other hand, clearly some works *are* still relevant a decade later, and i'm not sure that means the owner shouldn't still be benefitting from their sale. So maybe more like the 14yrs that it was for a while. I suppose the ideal would be based on market data: once per-year sales have fallen to less than, say, 1% of best-year sales, it gets, oh, i dunno, 3 more years of copyright protection. But i can't imagine successfully (and fairly) enforcing that. It might, however, encourage people to keep it on the market, at least, because if a book is out of print, it's sales [by the publisher] must, by definition, be zero, so it'd then lose copyright protection shortly after.


----------



## woodelf (May 9, 2004)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> As the market leader, D&D gets a high percentage of RPG sales regardless of what is driving the market. At least that's what Ryan Dancy's research found. So, even if V:TM is was creating the buzz in the market, D&D sales increased.




Are you sure you've got this right? If so, do you have a source? My understanding is that that is a hypothesis, the definition of the Skaff Effect. 

And, remember, the Skaff Effect is not some tried-and-true multi-decade old theorem of market economies--it's a theory proposed by someone at TSR/WotC, whose background and training i have no idea about (and to explain D&D's market dominance, IIRC). IOW, it comes from the same people who're telling us that the reason the market behaves the way it does is because of the Skaff Effect. And is as much effect as cause. It might be a self-fulfilling prophecy, or even just circular reasoning.



> While it might be possible for a group to play multiple d20 games without ever buying a PHB, I just don't see it happening. Gamers tend to be collectors first.




I wouldn't say collectors _first_. Most play first, then buy a game or two because they're playing it, and then _some_ become game collectors, some become multi-game-players, and some become both. Many only ever play a handful of RPGs, and may or may not buy rules for all of them. At least, that seems to be what WotC's research says, and that's one part that accords with my experiences and conversations with others. [Another part of the WotC survey that seems to get glossed over, and also accords with my experiences, is that those who only play one RPG drop out of the hobby sooner, and spend less money while they're in the hobby--the "best" customers play multiple games, though the modal number is between 2 and 3, IIRC.]

Also, while newbies tend to play what's offered, more experienced gamers tend to be somewhat fussy. I would never again voluntarily play D&D3[.5]E, now that i've gotten to know it pretty well. But there're at least half-a-dozen D20 System games i'd gladly play, given the opportunity. And if i were to run, say, Babylon 5 D20, i'd probably have players who don't own D&D books, and i certainly wouldn't expect them to buy a PH. With the easy availability of the D20SRD, i'd expect that's true of others, too. At least, i seriously doubt that a non-gamer fan of B5 who wants to try an RPG is gonna go buy both the B5 rulebook and the D&D rulebook. In short, if you don't like D&D, or just simply have no interest in it, you might very well play [several] other D20 System games without owning a D&D PH. And, as time goes by, this gets more and more likely. Especially as more licensed properties get turned into games, because these are the most likely to be advertised in places where non-D&D-players might find out about them.



> As for 4e. I'd be suprised if it wasn't OGL since they would have a hard time getting players to migrate. WotC relies on 3rd parties to developed the stuff that they need but isn't cost effective to do themselves (adventures, questionable licenses etc).




While i agree with you, the point that they might decide a more controlled licensing scheme, rather than an un-policed royalty-free trademark license, is better for them is valid. Given the way they're going, with the ever-tightening nature of the D20STL, it is not unreasonable to suspect that.



> I really hope this isn't the case. As OGL product stray further and further from D&D, I lose interest. I'm a huge REH fan but passed on Conan because they changed too much (esp. since I don't agree with most of the changes). Same with Judge Dredd. Unfortunately, we'll never know how well a d20 Conan would have sold if it was compatable and balanced for normal D&D play. I would have bought it.




Just remember that you are not the whole market. Frex, in general, the further it strays from D&D3[.5]E, the more likely i am to like it, IME. I rather dislike a lot of elements of D&D3[.5]E that aren't inherent to its D20 System underpinnings, so changes are often for the better. Thus, i prefer Spycraft and Arcana Unearthed vastly to the current D&D. And precisely _because_ they are different, rather than _despite_ the differences. 

Of course, _i'm_ not the whole market either. Rather, it's good to recognize that there are diversities. And don't forget the converse to your complaint: the people who wonder if such-n-such D20 System game would've done better if it hadn't slavishly stuck to D&D3E, mechanically. In this, as in many matters of taste, you just can't win: there'll always be people who think it's not different/original/whatever enough, and people who think it's too different/changed/whatever.


----------



## woodelf (May 9, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Here's a spin from a publisher... DON'T ask me if you can use my OGC... I simply can't be bothered with "can I use this" and "can I use that" all day.  *I have more important things to do than worry about it*.  Just use it... *that's why I gave you the stuff as OGC in the first place*.  I'm in the business of "publishing," not "licensing."
> 
> Now, I would love it if you give me a holler to let me know when you release a product that has my OGC in it, so I can see how my "child" has "grown up," but _that's not mandatory, either_.




Ditto. I don't understand people asking permission [for by-the-license open-content reuse], frankly--it's sorta weird when it happens. I sometimes want to say "what part of 'go ahead and use this' didn't you understand?" Actually, the more common questions i get that are of a similar nature, but equally bizarre to me are "do you mind if i link to your website?" [why would i put it up on the web if i didn't want people to read it? and why should i care how someone gets there to read it?] and "do you mind if we run one of your games at such-n-such con?" [why would i design an RPG and tell others about it, except so that they can play it? who would i sell or give away the rules, if not so that others can play it?]


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (May 29, 2004)

*Bump*

Just curious to see if there's any new developments related to this thread.


----------



## herald (May 29, 2004)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Just curious to see if there's any new developments related to this thread.



I posted a question to the guy who handles the OGC stuff at WOTC and they said that they are not asking him to do it and that there is other stuff that they consider to be a concern. SO don't look for WOTC to do it.


----------



## Dogbrain (May 29, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Actually, the more common questions i get that are of a similar nature, but equally bizarre to me are "do you mind if i link to your website?"




There are people so monumentally stupid that they have actually sued over being linked.  This has made it to court.  The courts have ruled, unanimously, that there is absolutely and utterly no legal principle that would prevent or restrict linking to a web page/site/whatever.  That did not stop some extremely short-sighted and foolish people from claiming some sort of fictional "moral constraint" upon who they would "permit" to link to their sites.  The law, on the other hand, has made it quite plain that their claimes were absolutely groundless.

Sound familiar?


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 29, 2004)

Dogbrain said:
			
		

> Sound familiar?



Heh...


----------



## Turanil (May 29, 2004)

> That did not stop some extremely short-sighted and foolish people from claiming some sort of fictional "moral constraint" upon who they would "permit" to link to their sites.




"_short-sighted and foolish people_"  or perhaps people with no concerns for others, plus naive enough to believe that it would be a good way to extort money through a legal proceeding...

Anyway, those who have compiled the SRD content of the Unearthed Arcana, don't forget to tell it on the forum once you release it somewhere (if you do). Even if I intend to buy the book someday, it would be cool to have a document from which copypaste when writing my homebrew stuff.

-----------------------------------

Edit months later: Yes, I finally bought Unearthed Arcana, and am still interested in getting the SRD.


----------



## Mucknuggle (May 29, 2004)

I'm just wondering, is the UA SRD project *dead* or is it on hold?


----------



## Swiftbrook (Jul 12, 2004)

Mucknuggle said:
			
		

> I'm just wondering, is the UA SRD project *dead* or is it on hold?




Someone on these boards said they would be rolling out an HTML version of UA 6 months after the book came out.  Depending on how you're counting that should be this month (if you're counting from when the book appeared in stores) or August (if you count from the official "release" date on the WotC site).

Now who was that masked poster?

-Swiftbrook


----------



## apieros (Aug 18, 2004)

Swiftbrook said:
			
		

> Someone on these boards said they would be rolling out an HTML version of UA 6 months after the book came out.  Depending on how you're counting that should be this month (if you're counting from when the book appeared in stores) or August (if you count from the official "release" date on the WotC site).




Well, it's August 18th:

I own UA.  Have since the 2nd day it was out.  (I had to wait for a paycheck.)

I'm building an Eberron campaign, and I want to use UA material.  I don't want to retype those part of the rules I want to use.

Has the UA SRD been "completed" or is it dead?


----------



## Fieari (Aug 18, 2004)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> Hmm... Strange, people seem to forget so quickly...
> 
> As i've said in the past, i've already scanned, OCRed, edited, layed out, pdfed all the OGC from UA. And i'll release it as soon as six months have passed since the release of UA by WotC, because i don't want to bite the hand that feeds me OGC.
> 
> ...



This was the guy.  Page three of this thread.


----------



## Eltern (Aug 18, 2004)

Well, if you've got it done, man, I'd like to see it. Elsewise I'm going to have to type out for my heavily house rule'd SRD for my new group


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Aug 18, 2004)

oops


----------



## wingsandsword (Aug 18, 2004)

Fieari said:
			
		

> This was the guy.  Page three of this thread.




I'd send him a PM or e-mail, but I don't have a Community Supporter account.  Could someone contact him and see if he still intends to do this?

I'm running a game with a lot of UA variants, and it would make my life a lot easier if I could Cut & Paste text together for house-rules sheets.


----------



## Wrathamon (Aug 31, 2004)

Bump!

any word on this?


----------



## Dreakean (Sep 4, 2004)

I whould really like to find out if anyone is working on making this available to us.


----------



## Yair (Sep 4, 2004)

Yeah, inquiring minds want to know...


----------



## Mac Callum (Sep 5, 2004)

Bump.  Subscribe.

This would make my life so much easier.  Any word?


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Sep 5, 2004)

If you ever find out, hopefully they'll include the missing metamagic spell components for B spells in the alphabet (check the table and you'll understand).


----------



## BSF (Sep 22, 2004)

Just another bump to see if Cergorach has released his version of the UA content.  I'm getting ready to propose that the group I play in use one of the variants on Spontaneous Metamagic.  I'm hoping it will be a little less confusing for some of the other players and thus encourage more metamagic usage.


----------

