A new site Idea The OGC exchange

[mattcolville]

True- most likely. Surprised it has happened already. But, if someone does collect all the OGC stuff and post without the publisher's permission, they are (or rather could be) in a bit of trouble. Just because something is listed as "Open" doesn't make it Public Domain. Still gotta get Company X's permission even for open content.

They're not in any trouble. As long as they don't include any product identity and modify their section 15 properly, you don't have to ask anyone anything. If they make it OGC, you can use it. They don't have to like it and, if they don't, that's not your fault.

Many consider it a courtesy to ask, but it's just a courtesy and not a requirement. Open Content is Open, you can use it. If a publisher has some issues about someone else using their OGC, they shouldn't make it OGC.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Open Content is Open, you can use it. If a publisher has some issues about someone else using their OGC, they shouldn't make it OGC.

IANAL.

But I want to reiterate: If the content is derived from the SRD-- which generally speaking is anything rules-related-- it is open content by default.

But it really isn't a case of "not making it open." I don't know every product out there, but with the exception of Green Ronin's Freeport, I can't think of any other product where the publisher "chose" to release large sections of stuff they could have retained as Product Identity.

In layman's terms I break it down into "fluffy bits" and "crunchy bits." The crunchy bits are going to be open, because they are rules-related and derived from the SRD. The fluffy bits may or may not be open-- usually not, but with some noteworthy exceptions.

Many publishers seem to want to obfuscate their Open Content and make it very difficult for the layman to determine exactly what is and isn't open.

Wulf

 

[thatdarncat]

Ace, you might want to take this over to the d20 publishers forum

 

[Morrus]

But it really isn't a case of "not making it open." I don't know every product out there, but with the exception of Green Ronin's Freeport, I can't think of any other product where the publisher "chose" to release large sections of stuff they could have retained as Product Identity.

Mongosoe have released vast tracts of text from various books. I don't know if they still do this, but they sued ot have entire sections that were OGC, not just specific spells or classes or what have you.

And Nat 20 Press' products are OGC in their entirety, from start to finish. And we'll keep doing that as long as it doesn't come back and bite us on the ass!

 

[JohnNephew]

Problem was, none of the publishers wanted to play ball,

This is a bit unfair painting with too broad a brush. From the outset, I've been all in favor of people collecting OGC, whether in web databases or in published works (like Green Ronin's pocket grimoires, which use spells from Atlas products). I've spoken up in discussions on this topic on the OGL mailing list, for example. So long as you follow the terms of the OGL, this is perfectly OK, legal, ethical, and as far as I'm concerned, a very good thing.

Mind you, I'm not interested in devoting a lot of my own scarce time to providing clean digital extractions of OGC from our products for someone else to put up on the web for free -- it's not an effective use of my time, which I'd rather spend on getting new content to market. However, if someone else is collecting the content (including, for instance, from PDFs containing OGC on our website), I'm not going to object, as long as they are following the licenses. We even chose a method of OGC delineation that would make it incredibly easy to do it right with our material.

From the outset, as one of the first two publishers to use the OGL and D20STL, I've realized this was going to be inevitable. I'd much rather see people using the OGL legitimately in this manner than, say, scanning and sharing entire products online (which happens despite what you can do legit under the OGL).

 

[mattcolville]

IANAL.

But I want to reiterate: If the content is derived from the SRD-- which generally speaking is anything rules-related-- it is open content by default.

But it really isn't a case of "not making it open." I don't know every product out there, but with the exception of Green Ronin's Freeport, I can't think of any other product where the publisher "chose" to release large sections of stuff they could have retained as Product Identity.

In layman's terms I break it down into "fluffy bits" and "crunchy bits." The crunchy bits are going to be open, because they are rules-related and derived from the SRD. The fluffy bits may or may not be open-- usually not, but with some noteworthy exceptions.

Many publishers seem to want to obfuscate their Open Content and make it very difficult for the layman to determine exactly what is and isn't open.

Wulf

I'm not talking about the SRD, I'm talking about the OGL. If someone plans on collecting all the OGC and publishing it, they can. They won't be breaking the law if they don't ask permission first.

Putting the d20 logo on it makes things more complex, but there's no requirement to do that.

 

[JohnNephew]

Just because something is listed as "Open" doesn't make it Public Domain. Still gotta get Company X's permission even for open content.

If it's Open Game Content, it is not Public Domain -- but you DO have permission to reproduce it however you like (excepting the portions of it labeled Product Identity), written permission that is the Open Game License itself.

Judicious use of Product Identity and careful and clear delineation of Open Game Content within your work makes it very easy to protect non-game-rules portions of your work, as a publisher; you just have to make sure you put some real value in those parts of your book as well as the crunchy bits.

 

[mattcolville]

Eden intentionally declared enough of each monster in the Liber Besarius so that other publishers could use the monsters in their book. At the same time, we declared enough of the stuff PI so people would still have a reason to use our book.

 

[The Sigil]

Agreed...

Many publishers seem to want to obfuscate their Open Content and make it very difficult for the layman to determine exactly what is and isn't open.
Wulf

Afraid I have to agree with Wulf on this one.

I also have an issue with "crippleOGC" - for example, "the creature's stat block is OGC, but the creature's name is PI." How the heck is someone else going to be able use that and maintain any sense of linkage to the original? (Answer: they're not).

I see publishers wanting to protect their stuff, but as I've said on the OGF-L boards, it wouldn't surprise me to see a publisher take the absurdity of trying to make it hard to locate the OGC to the extreme and designate:

"all prepositions and pronouns, as well as all content derived from the SRD, are considered OGC. All other stuff is Closed Content." Now explain again to me - how I am supposed to find the OGC and the Closed stuff?

Bah. Fie on publishers who don't comply with the OGL's terms - "you must CLEARLY designate which portions of your work are OGC" (emphasis mine).

Again, I lay down the gauntlet to publishers - if a six-year-old can't go through your book with a highlighter and highlight exactly all of the OGC the first time through, without missing any OGC and without highlighting anything that is NOT OGC, let me suggest to you that you aren't in compliance with the OGL (which requires "clear delineation").

IMO, the OGL requirement that OGC and non-OGC must be clearly delineated is the part of the OGL most frequently not complied with. In fact, I am surprised when companies DO comply with it - I think over 80% of the companies out there are absolutely NOT in compliance on this point. They're not even close.

Points to Wulf, BTW, for complying with it nicely, with "this page is Open Content" in HoHFwarves.

--The Sigil

 

[jgbrowning]

idea

Perhaps you could speak with the companies and ask for their approvel before putting any of their stuff on your site. My guess is that after a while they'd be fine with it.

I wouldn't put anything up, even if it was open, with out approval. Sure its not required, but it is the polite thing to do.