A new site Idea The OGC exchange

[mattcolville]

Re: Agreed...

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").

Thank god your interpretation of who's in compliance is meaningless. I wouldn't trust a six year old to be able to highlight his *own name* everywhere it appeared.

I want to relate something else...

I've been responsible for monitoring playtesting for about half a dozen complex games. Inevitably, the following happens. Someone comes forward with something they see as a problem. Some permutation of play that the tester could imagine happening. I ask if it *has* happened. Answer comes there; no.

Problems that never come up aren't problems. People who bitch about OGC who aren't publishers make me wish I had their lives, lives so devoid of any strife or cause to worry, that I have to seek out and borrow other people's causes to worry, even when they don't impact me.

 

[Orcus]

Ace-

Glad to see this idea raised again. It has been raised a bunch of times (well before the RR thread on the d20 lists and ogl lists, in fact).

I am a big proponent of open content. Always have been. The problem with the RR thread was way more about RR himself than about the idea. In fact, we came up with a pretty workable solution (more on that later). I agree that thread got a little anti-pdf but that isnt really the view of all publishers. Heck, my first release was pdf only. As for the "pros" list, lets just say that didnt really pan out (or if it did, I dont get emails from it any more). That, too, was more a reaction from GM to Robert Romano than anything else.

To your post...

I do agree there is an ethical component to use of open content. Let me give you an example, as written the OGL allows WotC to take our open content and republish it under the OGL, thus crushing rival companies by swooping up the good stuff and letting the irrelevant stuff sell. There is nothing stopping them form republishing Freeport in its entirety (with different maps and art, for example). The publishers were so worried about this situation that I asked Ryan Dancey to agree on behalf of WotC that they wouldnt do this to us. WotC agreed. They agreed it wasnt their policy or intent to use d20 products as a sample release and republish the good stuff. The rules allow it. But that would be bad. For example, anyone of the up and coming d20 companies could republish freeport. Heck, you could pdf all but the art and give it away for free! But I think we are all in agreement that is uncool. I see a difference between WotC giving us toys to play with and us fighting over the toys. WotC gets a true business advantage in doing so. That advantage isnt the same as between third parties. But I guess the bottom line is this, if we the publishers were so worried about WotC republishing our OGC in masse, you would think that would be the last thing we should do to each other. There is a difference between incorporating a few crunchy bits or rules variants, but a wholesale reprinting of a majority of a product is a bad idea, and in my mind violates the very ethical obligation that we made WotC agree they wouldnt do to our stuff.

So there is an ethical component to use of OGC in my opinion.

I like that your idea is to check with publishers about whether or not content is "dead" and you should post it. I think the publisher, not the compiler, should get to make that call. Let me give you an example. Relics and Rituals is full of good stuff. It has been out nearly 2 years. One might say it is "dead." Problem is, we are about to release RR2 and with it we are reprinting RR1 and expect a new batch of sales. You as the compiler wouldnt know that. The publisher should have the ability to say something is dead (or "run its course").

There are a number of problems with being a site posting open content.

First, the person running the site can only publish the open content under the OGL. Releasing content as OGC isnt the same as making it Public Domain. YOu can only use it under the OGL. That means your site would have to comply. That also means you run the risk of maintiaining that site. If you distribute improperly (bad section 15 designation, accidental inclusions of PI, etc) you become the one that people have to take action against. Up to this point, that has cooled many people who have wanted to do what you propose--they didnt want the liability of doing it wrong.

Second, as John mentioned, I certainly am not going to spend my time parsing out my material into a chunk for people to post. I do this as a second job and my schedule is filled (backlogged actually) with more pressing products. Heck, its hard to get the web enhancements up for the products I have out. It is certainly a lower priority to compile my OGC for others. That means you (or someone else) would have to compile it. Again, that leads to the problem above--if you do it wrong, you are on the hook.

We tossed around a good solution, in my opinion. Someone was going to start a list of products and the open content that could be found therein, item by item. This would be more of an index to OGC rather than a true bulk storehouse of OGC. That way if you want mass combat rules, you can consuly the list and see that Quintessential Fighter by Mongoose has that. You can then pick up the product or email Mongoose and ask for the files of the OGC. Or you can say, damn it I want giant frogs! You can see that we do them in Tomb of Abysthor and buy that product or email me and see if I will send that to you. This approach removes liability problems for the compiler.

Anyway, hope these thoughts help. And I will say this, it seems you have adopted the proper ethical framework for the task. This is a very small community and people are on the whole very cool and they work together. I dont believe it is always about what you CAN do but what you SHOULD do.

Just my thoughts....good luck!

Clark

 

[Orcus]

About the "clearly designate" concept, that sure has been done lots of different ways.

I will say this, I do know many publishers (myself included) who for a long time took the position that when WotC officially releases everything then we will be broader in our OGC designations. I certainly adopted that belief. Becasue remember a ton of the OGC we use is under a gentleperson's agreement and is REVOCABLE AT ANY TIME.

Later I loosened up and started doing really broad OGC designations. But that varies product to product. In fact, you will see that just about everything in Tome of Horrors is OGC (except for some stuff we got permission from WotC to use, which of course we then do not have the right to contribute as OGC).

So dont be so quick to judge publishers that dont just say "its all OGC" until WotC finally releases all their stuff officially. I have done that (its all OGC except for these 8 words) on occasion, but not on every occasion.

Plus, there are some real problems with many of the suggested ways to declare OGC that many who are critical of publisher propose as a solution. For example, the grey box method or the "its in italics its OGC" method. In either of those, if you leave a Spot check (DC 20) out of the grey box or not in italics, you are in violation. It is easier to be in compliance by a more general designation.

Clark

 

[Lizard]

Posting ALL of the stats from the upcoming Big Book O' Monsters would not, and would amount to piracy.

No, it wouldn't.

OPEN MEANS OPEN.

I oppose, utterly and without reservations, the scumwads who scan books and upload them to P2P or Usenet.

But taking open content -- which usually means OCRing, not scanning, and then doing a good deal of editing to remove the PI -- isn't piracy. It's an absolute legal right, something each and every publisher of the Open Gaming material consciously and fully agreed to when they included the OGL in their books.

Reuse and posting of open gaming content -- done in strict accordance with the open gaming license -- isn't piracy or theft, anymore than downloading Linux instead of buying the latest RedHat release at CompUSA is.

I greatly respect those who voluntarily refrain from rampant reposting, in order not to harm sales and encourage more OGC. Such concern for the health of the industry is excellent. BUT....it's an act of politeness, not obedience to the law. The terms of the OGL are clear. You can copy, post, distribute, reprint, change, fold, spindle, and mutilate all the OGC you want, without needing permission from anyone -- provided you obey the terms of the license yourself.

 

[Vrylakos]

No, it wouldn't.

OPEN MEANS OPEN.

You are right. In retrospect, taken in the context I meant it, I should have left off '...and would amount to piracy'.

However, I still stand by the original point of my post: a common toolset of rules from the various d20 publishers would be a great thing. All the stats for all the d20 monsters ever written would not really aid anything.

Vrylakos

 

[Orcus]

Sure. Open means open.

Thats true.

But the POWER to do something and the PROPRIETY of doing it are two different things. You cant remove a moral element from an act.

I do find it funny that some who are in the "open means open" camp and who want to repost OGC whenever they want because the rules allow them get mad when publishers make elaborate designations because the rules allow them. You cant have it both ways kids. Designations have to be "clear". That itself is not very clear. It certainly doesnt say "easy to reuse" or "easy on subsequent user". In fact, a designation could be clear but requre a good deal of work. Remember, you cant just be clear, you have to be clear and compliant. If your "clear" deisgnation has an error, you are not compliant. That, frankly, goes a long way to explaining the rather complicated designations some people use.

The rules allow people to "obfuscate" OGC to some extent or render it not that usable (names PI, stats OGC). That sort of content is not that usable (unless, as we have done, you add a license allowing the use of the PI content). But just like the rules allow you to reuse OGC, it doesnt require anyone to make it easy on you.

I am against purposeful obfuscation of OGC just like I am against wholesale redistribution of OGC without permission. Both are allowed by the "rules" (you have the POWER to do it) but it would be wrong to do so (it would be IMPROPER).

This very topic has been a favorite topic of mine since the inception of the licenses.

Clark

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: Agreed...

Thank god your interpretation of who's in compliance is meaningless. I wouldn't trust a six year old to be able to highlight his *own name* everywhere it appeared.

In words attributed to Albert Einstein, "if you can't explain something to a reasonably intelligent six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself." That's why I deliberately picked that example - I feel that "clearly" should conform to that standard. I personally think that's an excellent "standard candle" for Section 8 of the OGL. Now, I know Clark disagrees with me, but he has other reasons for doing so (namely, to help protect his livelihood from being posted - legally - all over the net) rather than "six year olds are dumb." Perhaps I want "clearly" to mean "simply" in the context of the OGL but that's another discussion.

I want to relate something else...

I've been responsible for monitoring playtesting for about half a dozen complex games. Inevitably, the following happens. Someone comes forward with something they see as a problem. Some permutation of play that the tester could imagine happening. I ask if it *has* happened. Answer comes there; no.

So if you haven't experienced the problem yourself that makes it trivial? I *have* run into problems trying to "lift" OGC for my own legal use (for one thing, I am trying to put together an OGL compliant campaign sourcebook for my players), so please don't demean me and try to handwave things away by saying "if the problem doesn't come up, why complain?"

For me, the problem has come up SEVERAL times. Now, when I've asked folks, "I don't know if this is OGC - can I use it even if it's not?" I've always gotten a polite "yes it's OGC" or "sure, no problem! We'd love to let you use it even though it isn't!" The publishing community is great that way, but my issue isn't with the community on this so much as the fact that there is sometimes a delination problem. That a "nice community" exists doesn't solve the problem - the community may eventually be "not nice."

Problems that never come up aren't problems. People who bitch about OGC who aren't publishers make me wish I had their lives, lives so devoid of any strife or cause to worry, that I have to seek out and borrow other people's causes to worry, even when they don't impact me.

Again, the problem *has* come up. I *AM* a publisher (not a big one, but I do release d20 products for money), so please don't try to handwave me away by saying, "well, you're not a publisher so who cares what you think?" This is very much an issue for me and frankly I found your comments insulting and belittling. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but in essence I got, "well, this hasn't affected me so I assume it hasn't affected you - and even if it has, because I don't care that it happened to you, you shouldn't care that it happened to you either."

The bottom line is this - ultimately, the RPG consumer is affected by what decisions publishers do and don't make - and the ones they can and can't make. That means that consumers might want to be a little worried about this as well. The RPG community needs to have discussion between consumers and producers. When you get discussion between multiple producers and ignore the consumers, you get Major League Baseball.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

I do find it funny that some who are in the "open means open" camp and who want to repost OGC whenever they want because the rules allow them get mad when publishers make elaborate designations because the rules allow them. You cant have it both ways kids. Designations have to be "clear". That itself is not very clear. It certainly doesnt say "easy to reuse" or "easy on subsequent user". In fact, a designation could be clear but requre a good deal of work. Remember, you cant just be clear, you have to be clear and compliant. If your "clear" deisgnation has an error, you are not compliant. That, frankly, goes a long way to explaining the rather complicated designations some people use.

*chuckles* Fair enough, Clark. There are those who would, if they could legally do so, repost everything immediately. I grant you that. I see your argument, even if I don't really agree with it - I happen to fall into the camp of "look, even if someone DOES copy and repost our stuff verbatim, we did it first (when most of the sales occur) and we did it better (so most people who hear about it will want the original anyway) - so it won't really hurt our sales at all."

This is all speculative and hypothetical, of course, but it would be interesting to see how much SSS stuff would have been lost to sales had you not done a little obfuscation and how much Bastion Press stuff has seen lost sales because they didn't. But since there is no method I know of to measure "what we didn't sell," we'll have to leave that one to the philosophers LOL.

The rules allow people to "obfuscate" OGC to some extent or render it not that usable (names PI, stats OGC). That sort of content is not that usable (unless, as we have done, you add a license allowing the use of the PI content). But just like the rules allow you to reuse OGC, it doesnt require anyone to make it easy on you.

I happen to disagree with that reading of the OGL, but that's because I interpret "clear" as "not obfuscated" (though I do grant you that it is perfectly fine by the rules to render it "not that usable" - though I think that this defeats the purpose of the OGL - which is to allow for cross-pollination). IOW, I disagree with one aspect of your reading, but as you mentioned, the OGL is not "clear" on "clear" so such disagreements are almost expected.

I am against purposeful obfuscation of OGC just like I am against wholesale redistribution of OGC without permission. Both are allowed by the "rules" (you have the POWER to do it) but it would be wrong to do so (it would be IMPROPER).

If it's an argument you're looking for, you won't find one here. At least not really. I am all for the wholesale redistribution of OGC without permission - after a "waiting period" from the first publication of the OGC in question (perhaps 5 years). But then, I am also against copyrights that last more than 14 years with a 14 year renewal because I am a strong believer in the public's right to receive things into the public domain in a timely fashion and feel that currently it is the public that is the victim of piracy of intellectual property that rightfully belongs to it (where the creator is dead, he need not profit) - but that's another rant entirely.

--The Sigil

 

[Orcus]

how much SSS stuff would have been lost to sales had you not done a little obfuscation

I dont think we did "obfuscate". Creature Collection was perhaps not the clearest, but hey that came out before the MM and was the first major work of OGC. So we were still figuring it out. As for RR. we did PI stuff, but I included a license so that people could use that stuff.

As for some of my recent products, check this out:

From Rainbow Mage

Designation of Open Game Content:
All text contained within this module—excluding any text on the inside or outside of the front or back cover or on the Credits page—is hereby designated as Open Game Content, subject to the Product Identity designation below. Any questions regarding the Open Game Content within this module should be directed to Clark Peterson at clark@necromancergames.com.

Designation of Product Identity:
The following items are hereby designated as Product Identity as provided in section 1(e) of the Open Game License:

1. The name “Necromancer Games” as well as all logos and identifying marks of Necromancer Games, Inc., including but not limited to the Orcus logo and the phrase “Third Edition Rules, First Edition Feel”;

2. The Necromancer Games product name “The Tower of the Rainbow Mage”;

3. The name “Sword & Sorcery” and “Sword & Sorcery Studios” as well as all Sword & Sorcery Product and Product Line names including: Creature Collection and Creature Collection 2: Dark Menagerie as well as the name “Belsameth”

4. All artwork, illustration, graphic design, maps, and cartography, including any text contained within such artwork, illustration, maps or cartography;

5. The names of the following characters or places, but not their stat blocks (if any): Londar Brightrain, Baron Kurell, Alfguir K’Eliek, Learah Relight, Ander Fierk, Xanthaque, Hampton Hill, Arn’s Mountain and Horgrim’s Temple;

6. This module uses Open Game Content from both the Creature Collection and Creature Collection 2: Dark Menagerie published by Sword & Sorcery Studios. That Open Game Content includes content designated as Product Identity. Such Product Identity is used here by specific permission. The following list details the Open Game Content used in this product, its source and any Product Identity designation:

a. The monsters “Blue Lotus Flower” and “Silver Golem” are Open Game Content used from Creature Collection and their names are designated as Product Identity;

b. The monster template “Belsameth Spider” and the monsters “Darkling Sentinel” and “Quicksilver Golem” are Open Game Content used from Creature Collection 2: Dark Menagerie and their names are designated as Product Identity.

That was from our most recent adventure. I think that is pretty damn clear.

And this is from the upcoming Tome of Horrors:

Notice of Open Game Content:
This product contains Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Game License, below. Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of the Open Game License.

Designation of Open Game Content:
All text contained within this book (including monster names, stats and descriptions) is hereby designated as Open Game Content, with the following exceptions:

1. Any text on the inside or outside of the front or back cover or on the Credits or Preface pages is not Open Game Content;

2. Any advertising material—including the text of any advertising material—is not Open Game Content;

3. Any material contained in the “Credit” section of each monster is not Open Game Content. See the “Note on the ‘Credit’ Section,” below;

4. The text of the Preface is not Open Game Content
Note on the “Credit” Section: The Credit section for each creature contains information detailing the origin of the particular monster. This content is not Open Game Content, as explained above. Some material within the Credit section is copyright TSR/Wizards of the Coast and/or Necromancer Games Inc. and is used within the Credit section by permission. You are not allowed to use any of the information in the Credit section under the Open Game License.

Designation of Product Identity: The following items are hereby designated as Product Identity as provided in section 1(e) of the Open Game License:

1. The name “Necromancer Games” as well as all logos and identifying marks of Necromancer Games, Inc., including but not limited to the Orcus logo and the phrase “Third Edition Rules, First Edition Feel”;

2. The Necromancer Games product name “Tome of Horrors” except for its use within Section 15 of the Open Game License;

3. All artwork, illustration or graphic design including any text contained within such artwork, illustration or graphic design;

Then I even go on to tell people how to reuse the stuff from Tome of Horrors:

Reusing the Monsters in This Tome

This book contains tons of Open Game Content. Basically, all the monster names, stats, descriptions, combat information—everything on any monster page except the art and the stuff in the “Credit” section—is all Open Game Content!

We want other producers of d20 products to use these great monsters in their products. To help make that happen, here are instructions on how to reuse the creatures contained in this book and comply with the Open Game License from our perspective.
Our Promise: If these instructions are followed properly, Necromancer Games, Inc., will not allege you have failed to comply with the license from our standpoint.

How To Do It

Just in case, here is a brief review of the basics of using Open Game Content under version 1.0 of the Open Game License
Whenever you copy, modify or distribute Open Game Content you have to update Section 15 of your Copyright Notice with the exact Copyright Notice from the source from which you are using material (see section 6 of the license, above).

That’s why we all have to list: “Open Game License v 1.0a (or whatever version you are using) Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.” and “System Reference Document Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson” in Section 15 of our products—because we all used the Open Game License and some content from the System Reference Document in creating our products.

Here is the important part. If you want to use Open Game Content from a source other than the System Reference Document (like, for example, if you want to use a monster from this book) you have to update the Section 15 Copyright Notice of your product with the copyright information from that other source.

Now we have the basics out of the way. To use Open Game Content from this book you have to take our Section 15 Copyright Notice information and put it in the Section 15 Copyright Notice of your book. So now lets take a look at our Section 15 Copyright Notice for this book. It says:

“[Insert the name of monster used—incorporated here by this reference—in place of this bracketed text, with each monster used requiring a separate entry in Section 15] from the Tome of Horrors Copyright 2002, Necromancer Games, Inc.; [see the individual monster entry or entries for additional Section 15 information and insert that information here—incorporated here by this reference—in place of this bracketed text when reusing].”

What does that mean? Simple. To construct the copyright notice for your product based on Open Game Content from this book, you have to follow the direction in the bracketed text. Doing so, you go to the specific monster page that you are using and get the monster name from the top of the page and the rest of the information there from the Copyright Notice section at the bottom of the page and put it in place of the bracketed text. It couldn’t be easier. But just in case, let’s do a few examples.

Example

Let’s say you wanted to use the kamadan in your new d20 product. Here is how you would cite it. You know its name—the kamadan—so you plug that into the first part of bracketed text, replacing it, so that it now reads:

“Kamadan from the Tome of Horrors Copyright 2002, Necromancer Games, Inc.;”

Alright. To deal with replacing the next bracketed text, you to go to the Copyright Notice section of the kamadan entry and there you find:

“Author Scott Greene, based on original material by Nick Louth.”
Now all you have to do is replace the final bracketed text with that information and you are done! It should now look like this:

“Kamadan from the Tome of Horrors Copyright 2002, Necromancer Games, Inc.; Author Scott Greene, based on original material by Nick Louth.”

That is what you now have to put in your Section 15 Copyright Notice since you used that Open Game Content that we distributed. Wasn’t that easy?

Using Multiple Monsters

The monsters in this book are so cool that we are sure you will want to use several of them in your products. Does that mean you have to do a whole new entry in your Section 15 for every monster you use? Unfortunately, yes. That is a side effect of our desire to properly and accurately credit each author and the original source material. We thought it was so important to give proper credit that we are sure subsequent publishers will not mind this slight inconvenience. We just couldn’t find another way to do it.

But we will give you an example of how to do it:

Let’s say you want to use the dark creeper, the pech, the mobat and the shadow demon in your product. You go to the respective monster pages and you compile the names of the monsters and the respective Copyright Notice information for each of the monsters:
• Dark Creeper, Author Scott Greene, based on original material by Rik Shepard.
• Pech, Author Scott Greene, based on original material by Gary Gygax.
• Mobat, Author Scott Greene and Clark Peterson, based on original material by Gary Gygax.
• Shadow Demon, Author Scott Greene, based on original material by Neville White.

You would have to make four entries in your Section 15 reflecting each monster you use. Using the above four monsters, you would have to add the following entries to your Section 15:

“Dark Creeper from the Tome of Horrors Copyright 2002, Necromancer Games, Inc.; Author Scott Greene, based on original material by Rik Shepard.

Pech from the Tome of Horrors Copyright 2002, Necromancer Games, Inc.; Author Scott Greene, based on original material by Gary Gygax

Mobat from the Tome of Horrors Copyright 2002, Necromancer Games, Inc.; Author Scott Greene and Clark Peterson, based on original material by Gary Gygax

Shadow Demon from the Tome of Horrors Copyright 2002, Necromancer Games, Inc.; Author Scott Greene, based on original material by Neville White.”

Important Reminder

Remember, at no time can you use or refer to any of the content in the “Credit” section of any monster. That content is provided to us by license and we do not have the right to contribute it as Open Game Content. If you use any content from the “Credit” section of any monster, you will be in violation of the license.

Conclusion

There you have it! Not only a ton of Open Game Content, but instructions on how to use it properly too!

If you have any questions about how to use the Open Game Content contained in this book, please email Clark Peterson at www.necromancergames.com.

Disclaimer

The above is not legal advice. It is a helpful summary to aid you in reusing the content contained in this book. Though the above language warrants that Necromancer Games, Inc., will not allege you have failed to comply with the Open Game License if you follow the above instruction, this does not prevent third parties from possibly making such a claim. If you have concerns, please consult an attorney.

HOW ABOUT THAT!!!

Clark

 

[The Sigil]

Down, boy!

BTW, not fair that you have copies of the licenses for cut/paste (from electronic copies of your books? ) and we have to type it longhand - oh, yeah - that illustrates the pain in the neck this project would be... back to the point at hand.

I dont think we did "obfuscate". Creature Collection was perhaps not the clearest, but hey that came out before the MM and was the first major work of OGC. So we were still figuring it out. As for RR. we did PI stuff, but I included a license so that people could use that stuff.

Sorry for the misunderstanding - when you brought up obfuscate, I thought you were referring to the CC, et al.

There are publishers out there a lot worse than SSS - "all content derived from the SRD is OGC." Duh. And exactly what DID you derive from the SRD, anyway? That kind of stuff REALLY irks.

Sorry for any misunderstandings - I think SSS has done an excellent job as we have learned about the OGL together as a community of making itself easier to follow as an example. SSS, Mongoose, Mystic Eye et al, and WotC are in my mind the "big 4" of the d20 industry and all of them (except WotC) are doing better and better at showing folks how to use OGC simply.

--The Sigil