Can someone explain crippled OGC to me

[Psion]

I guess I must agree that looking to the future I must be on the same side as you.

But I really wish there was some way to not have sides at this stage and try to work to find a better solution.

I guess there shouldn't be any sides. Perhaps it was wrong for me to invoke that term. Wulf's the person with the authority to do as he pleases with his intellectual property. There's plenty of misunderstandings and mixed understandings to go around, and I certainly don't hold any rancor for anyone.

It comes down to this:
I do have this understanding of what the implications of OGC, one that matches Yair's and Sigils, AFAICT. I beleive that interpretation to be correct.

I also have sensibilities about what is "fair", what is "dirty pool", and my own ideals about what the Open Game community could and should be. That, I will have a harder time making the case has objective worth.

 

[Reynard]

Something struck me about this whole discussion: the point of the OGL, from its creators anyway, wasn't that their would be an Open Source style movement among designers, but that someone besides WotC would provide for certain kinds of support -- it seems they meant Adventures and Campaign settings more than the pure crunch type supplements that are more common -- for D&D so WotC wouldn't have to, which would fuel sales of the D&D core set. Now, if this is the case, then anyone discussing creator rights or Open Source is sort of missing the point, at least from the original inception of the OGL.

That having been said, it is pretty obvious that the OGL has moved well beyond WotC's control and issues of Open Source *are* important to some people. But I'd say they aren't important to WotC. In fact, I would guess that the OGL is no longer important to WotC, since there are few publishers actually working to support D&D. What I would guess is that in THE EDITION THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED, you'll see either no OGL at all, or something more restrictive like a "Powered by D&D" license.

I think someone, or some group, should go in and tear the OGC out of ever product on the market and put it together in a format that is accessible to publishers. I think more publishers should work together to make their products mutually attractive. I think that some company or companies should take a leadership position -- which is decidedly different than merely being the biggest seller -- in the d20/OGL industry and create a culture that fosters shared ideas and shared OGC. And to be honest, I think that company should be Malhavoc. Rather than cripple their (his, really) OGC, it should be easily accessible. It should form the base for a counter-D&D.

But it won't happen. Which is sad. In an industry as small as this one, people should realize that shared ideas and unity are just as likely to result in success -- for everyone -- as insular competition.

 

[BryonD]

I guess there shouldn't be any sides. Perhaps it was wrong for me to invoke that term. Wulf's the person with the authority to do as he pleases with his intellectual property. There's plenty of misunderstandings and mixed understandings to go around, and I certainly don't hold any rancor for anyone.

It comes down to this:
I do have this understanding of what the implications of OGC, one that matches Yair's and Sigils, AFAICT. I beleive that interpretation to be corect.

I also have sensibilities about what is "fair", what is "dirty pool", and my own ideals about what the Open Game community could and should be. That, I will have a harder time making the case has objective worth.

Fair enough.

But, for me personally, I can agree with an interpretation while taking objection to the casting of motivations and attacks that have, unfortunately, been the theme of response.

Not saying that doesn't apply to you as well, I'm just trying to define my position.

 

[Nellisir]

Something struck me about this whole discussion: the point of the OGL, from its creators anyway, wasn't that their would be an Open Source style movement among designers, but that someone besides WotC would provide for certain kinds of support -- it seems they meant Adventures and Campaign settings more than the pure crunch type supplements that are more common -- for D&D so WotC wouldn't have to, which would fuel sales of the D&D core set. Now, if this is the case, then anyone discussing creator rights or Open Source is sort of missing the point, at least from the original inception of the OGL.

That's the primary reason. Encouraging cross-pollination and a stronger design concept in general was a secondary reason, but it was a reason. WotC could have easily made the OGL non-viral, or preserved -their- right to reproduce material without granting it to anyone else, but they didn't.

 

[Khuxan]

That having been said, it is pretty obvious that the OGL has moved well beyond WotC's control and issues of Open Source *are* important to some people. But I'd say they aren't important to WotC. In fact, I would guess that the OGL is no longer important to WotC, since there are few publishers actually working to support D&D. What I would guess is that in THE EDITION THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED, you'll see either no OGL at all, or something more restrictive like a "Powered by D&D" license.

I don't think Wizards can afford to do that. Making TETSNBN non-OGL compatible would cause a huge rift in the gaming community. Suddenly I can't use the Next Stormwrack with Arcana Evolved, Thieves' World, 101 Feats, Advanced Player's Guide, and so on. If Wizards did make TETSNBN off limits to third party publishers, I wouldn't invest in it.

 

[jmucchiello]

I'll start by pointing out that you are quoting the rant which I deleted before your reply was up.

Oh. My apologies but I tend to take a long time responding to posts and don't expect them to be deleted/edited when I do respond. I'd edit my post but since you addressed it I suppose there's no point to that.

Looking at the first post in the other thread, I can only say that I see zero indications of any real effort to offer constructive advice to the matter at hand...

Advice? Such as? The publishers who create crippled OGC know they do and have been asked politely and impolitely not to do so many times. They have been asked to move toward light in many small ways. They don't move. Constructive advice is only useful if the target thinks they need advice. Those who create crippled OGC are happy with what they've wrought and see anyone naysaying their OGC declarations as so much internet noise. So, go ahead, offer Wulf some constructive advice. See what happens. (Note, I don't mean badger Wulf in particular. Try to explain to any publisher whose OGC declaration seems crippled that you think their declaration is unclear and you'd like to help them achieve OGC nirvana and see how far you get.) They don't want advice. They want us to shut up about it and just use the license quietly.

Please point me to where anyone has offered the slightest sympathy to this concern

There are 4+ years worth of posts on the ogl-l mailing list about this. Plenty of sympathy and antipathy has been shown by both sides in that forum. Nothing changes.

It is a step in a process and the best possible outcome is to take it as a learning experience and try to find a better solution. No one,not one person, has stepped up to the plate for that.

Nor have you. Go ahead. Find a "bad guy" and see if you can achieve middle ground with him or her. I'm serious about this. There comes a point where you have to give up and just accept that some people will create crippled OGC. Accept that all you can do is avoid it.

Certainly not all people who care about OGC are whiners. I never claimed they are.

But hiding amongst that group is a subgroup that seems to be obsessed not with OGC for the sake of cultivating more OGC, but OGC for the sake of wikis and free stuff. My comments are aimed at that specific subgroup. And I offer no apology for it whatsoever.

And you shouldn't. But none of those freeloaders are arguing with you in this thread and that's why I responded to your original (now missing) post.

 

[BryonD]

Oh. My apologies but I tend to take a long time responding to posts and don't expect them to be deleted/edited when I do respond. I'd edit my post but since you addressed it I suppose there's no point to that.

No problem, I posted and you started to reply before I cleared it. I got no complaints coming.

I just pointed out that I cleared it because I do agree that my anger got the better of me and my specific comments were excessive. The fact that I noticed that after a slight reflection and removed the comments is simply relevant to the context of further replies.

Advice? Such as? The publishers who create crippled OGC know they do and have been asked politely and impolitely not to do so many times. They have been asked to move toward light in many small ways. They don't move. Constructive advice is only useful if the target thinks they need advice. Those who create crippled OGC are happy with what they've wrought and see anyone naysaying their OGC declarations as so much internet noise. So, go ahead, offer Wulf some constructive advice. See what happens. (Note, I don't mean badger Wulf in particular. Try to explain to any publisher whose OGC declaration seems crippled that you think their declaration is unclear and you'd like to help them achieve OGC nirvana and see how far you get.) They don't want advice. They want us to shut up about it and just use the license quietly.

There are 4+ years worth of posts on the ogl-l mailing list about this. Plenty of sympathy and antipathy has been shown by both sides in that forum. Nothing changes.
Nor have you. Go ahead. Find a "bad guy" and see if you can achieve middle ground with him or her. I'm serious about this. There comes a point where you have to give up and just accept that some people will create crippled OGC. Accept that all you can do is avoid it.
And you shouldn't. But none of those freeloaders are arguing with you in this thread and that's why I responded to your original (now missing) post.

My conversation is in regard to recent events only. If this specific topic has been discussed and rejected before by Wulf, then that would change things. I don't know that to be the case. I don't know Wulf well, but I have had dealings with him and I like and respect him. I believe his is an OGL "good guy" and in the absence of some real clear evidence to the contrary, he is going to get the benefit of the doubt from me here.

I am far less certain that "none" of the freeloaders are active in this issue however. My perception is that the most outraged and aggressive finger pointing is coming from a "you screwing with my free stuff" position. That does not include everyone by any means.

I agree 100% that there are real jerks out there who are actively and intentionally abusing the OGL and there is nothing that seems to be available to sway them to a non-jerk position. I do not in any way intend to be supporting that position in the least. I'm aslo not prepared at this point to lump Wulf in with that group.

I haven't read 4+ years of ogl-l posts. I haven't read a single post.
I do not know who the active people in these groups are.

If you come out and tell me that Wulf himself has said he understands the matter and doesn't care then I will have no choice but to change my position and I will feel very bad about that. But I'll be highly suprised if that is the case. If you have such information and do not want to post it publicly, I certainly appreciate an e-mail (my username AT mindspring dot com).

I don't know what the advice would be. It seems a difficult problem. The answer may be that you just have to suck it up or stop publishing. But even that, tactfully stated, would be a world of improvement over the attack tone that this entire matter was initiated under.

I hope that seems a reasonable position to take. I believe it is.

 

[madelf]

My conversation is in regard to recent events only. If this specific topic has been discussed and rejected before by Wulf, then that would change things. I don't know that to be the case. I don't know Wulf well, but I have had dealings with him and I like and respect him. I believe his is an OGL "good guy" and in the absence of some real clear evidence to the contrary, he is going to get the benefit of the doubt from me here.

You do realize that the issues being discussed here are not just about Wulf, right? He has just (unfortunately - as he's no more deserving of the abuse than anyone else with "crippled" OGC declarations) been used as an example, having had his product brought up early in the thread. I don't think the intent has ever been to say, "Look. This publisher is the ultimate in OGL evil."

I am far less certain that "none" of the freeloaders are active in this issue however. My perception is that the most outraged and aggressive finger pointing is coming from a "you screwing with my free stuff" position. That does not include everyone by any means.

Why does it matter if "none" are? All that should matter, as a measure of validity of intent for the overall issue, is that some are not freeloaders. For myself, I've never used OGL open content from anyone, ever. At the moment, my published products are all clip art. The game system I'm currently developing is not OGL or D20 derived (although I may consider doing OGL products at some point also). So I think you'd be hard put to call me an OGL freeloader. I'm also not outraged or (IMO) aggressive. I'm simply taking part in pointing out, and offering evidence to support the accusation, an example of what I see as improper use of the OGL.

I agree 100% that there are real jerks out there who are actively and intentionally abusing the OGL and there is nothing that seems to be available to sway them to a non-jerk position. I do not in any way intend to be supporting that position in the least. I'm aslo not prepared at this point to lump Wulf in with that group.

Misunderstanding and improperly applying the OGL license does not necessarily make Wulf a jerk. You could (if you chose - you are under no obligation to do so) accept the idea that he might be doing it wrong, without buying into the idea that he's a horrible person. Your reactions seem to imply that you would somehow have to either think Wulf is a bad guy, or agree with everything he's doing. I assure you, I don't agree with him on this subject, but I certainly don't hate him, or even dislike him.

I haven't read 4+ years of ogl-l posts. I haven't read a single post.
I do not know who the active people in these groups are.

Then how can you come to the conclusion that everyone who objects to crippled open content is a freeloader? That's quite a leap, I think, based only on the contents of this thread.

If you come out and tell me that Wulf himself has said he understands the matter and doesn't care then I will have no choice but to change my position and I will feel very bad about that. But I'll be highly suprised if that is the case. If you have such information and do not want to post it publicly, I certainly appreciate an e-mail (my username AT mindspring dot com).

Again, what Wulf has or hasn't said should be relevent only to your feelings about Wulf (if even that). It has nothing to do with the much larger issue of crippled open content. We could go through the entire thread and pull out every single reference to Wulf, Bad Axe Games, Grim Tales, and Mythic Heroes (substituting some other company & product with a similar declaration)... and all the points would still be valid.

I don't know what the advice would be. It seems a difficult problem. The answer may be that you just have to suck it up or stop publishing. But even that, tactfully stated, would be a world of improvement over the attack tone that this entire matter was initiated under.

I think you are severely over-reacting to this subject. You've seemingly made it too personal, and too closely tied to a particular publisher you like. This subject is much larger than Wulf, he's just had the misfortune to be swept up in it. Even so, I don't recall any significant number of posters taking a tone of attack against anyone personally. The only attacks (it seems to me) have been on the practice itself, and how it relates to the OGL and the copyright laws.

As for advice, I suggested a method a few posts back that would allow a publisher to very tightly control exactly what he did and didn't release as open content, without the need to declare all text PI, by designating the minimal mechanical text as OGC, while keeping all the "flavor" text around them still PI. It would involve some significant effort, so I've got little hope it'll be adopted, but I think it's a solution that would make a very reasonable compromise, meeting the intent for open content to be text while still protecting the writer's creative work.

 

[BryonD]

You do realize that the issues being discussed here are not just about Wulf, right? He has just (unfortunately - as he's no more deserving of the abuse than anyone else with "crippled" OGC declarations) been used as an example, having had his product brought up early in the thread. I don't think the intent has ever been to say, "Look. This publisher is the ultimate in OGL evil."

I have referenced the other thread several times. It is specifically about Wulf.

I'm also not outraged or (IMO) aggressive. I'm simply taking part in pointing out, and offering evidence to support the accusation, an example of what I see as improper use of the OGL.

Agreed.

Then how can you come to the conclusion that everyone who objects to crippled open content is a freeloader? That's quite a leap, I think, based only on the contents of this thread.

I have not come to that conclusion and to the contrary I have specifically stated that a)I strongly object to crippled content and b)I am only referring to a sub group of people.

It would be quite a leap. Fortunately, I have not by any measure taken it.

Again, what Wulf has or hasn't said should be relevent only to your feelings about Wulf (if even that). It has nothing to do with the much larger issue of crippled open content. We could go through the entire thread and pull out every single reference to Wulf, Bad Axe Games, Grim Tales, and Mythic Heroes (substituting some other company & product with a similar declaration)... and all the points would still be valid.

I think you are severely over-reacting to this subject. You've seemingly made it too personal, and too closely tied to a particular publisher you like. This subject is much larger than Wulf, he's just had the misfortune to be swept up in it. Even so, I don't recall any significant number of posters taking a tone of attack against anyone personally. The only attacks (it seems to me) have been on the practice itself, and how it relates to the OGL and the copyright laws.

You need to look again. Particularly at the other thread. Even in this thread, I have only become frustrated once the conversation turned from cripple content in general to this specific case.

As for advice, I suggested a method a few posts back that would allow a publisher to very tightly control exactly what he did and didn't release as open content, without the need to declare all text PI, by designating the minimal mechanical text as OGC, while keeping all the "flavor" text around them still PI. It would involve some significant effort, so I've got little hope it'll be adopted, but I think it's a solution that would make a very reasonable compromise, meeting the intent for open content to be text while still protecting the writer's creative work.

If you offered that, then I missed it and apologize.

 

[Sledge]

This keeps coming up as a benefit, but to be honest, it's something of a "paper benefit" (or "paper kitten" if you will). An S.15 can become very large very quickly, and there's no way to indicate source material for a particular rule without a special license from the copyright holder.

You are quite right. If someone truly wants to benefit from this they have to take it a step further. The OGL prohibits other references without separate agreements. Simply put a note in your books that people are allowed to refer to your book in context or in a footnote etc and they can do this. The benefit is small because people don't do this. It's not hard. Heck even post such things on your website regarding older books. Does anyone have a problem with this other than WotC?

My website -easily- has 50 citations in it's S.15, most of which I -haven't- pulled anything from (heck, I don't own 1/3rd of them). Those are compiled from just 25%-50% of the OGL books in my print library -- I haven't gotten to the others yet, and I've barely touched my 100+ pdfs.

Doing the math puts you at having half your books with OGC that has been reused. Half isn't bad.