Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orcus" data-source="post: 253415" data-attributes="member: 1254">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</blockquote>

Verification