How do you improve the OGL?

[Ranger REG]

I know we can only speculate what the new version of the OGL will be. I don't know if even WotC have any idea what the new version will include.

I guess the best way to start this discussion is to ask: After 7 years, what is missing from OGL v1.0a?

 

[jaerdaph]

I think a new OGL should require a standardized format for how declarations of Product Identity and Open Game Content are made so we don't see any more "crippled" OGC declarations in the 4e era. There should be no more ambiguity in PI and OGC declarations.

 

[Vigilance]

I dunno.

In some cases I think OGC and PI should be a little ambiguous because there are some corner cases that should be covered.

But we are usually really clear about what's open, and open up a lot, so I'm more speaking theoretically than anything I'm likely to do.

Chuck

 

[kingpaul]

An ability, in the product itself, of where a mechanic came from?

If I got a feat from Bob's Book of Feats, and use it in my Feat Anthology, I'd like to point out where it came from.

 

[trancejeremy]

An ability, in the product itself, of where a mechanic came from?

If I got a feat from Bob's Book of Feats, and use it in my Feat Anthology, I'd like to point out where it came from.

Yeah, that would be nice, especially from a consumer's point of view. And it's always nice to give credit. The trouble is, I think that could potentially butt heads with the section about not indicating "compatability".

I mean, say someone makes a RPG that turns out to be successful. Just for the sake of example, call it "Danger Cow".

Then a 3rd party might borrow some of the OGL content from it, then put on the cover "uses material from" in small letters, then in big letters "Danger Cow RPG", trying to cash in on the popularity of that game system.

We've sort of seen that with d20, except companies would come up with different names to indicate it's suitable for a certain flavor of d20.

 

[tensen]

I think someone with mdoerator abilities needs to differentiate the forums for folks. The OGF-L list used to be discussion for Open Gaming Lciense in general, with the OGF-D20-L was for discussion of WOTC's OGL.


In interest of keeping to the thread...
I would like to see the easy ability to designate that product used rules from another product. Outside of section 15, I mean. There were several things in the d20 license that made publishers hestitant to more publically denote where things came from.

 

[Garnfellow]

An ability, in the product itself, of where a mechanic came from?

If I got a feat from Bob's Book of Feats, and use it in my Feat Anthology, I'd like to point out where it came from.

How does Paizo get around this in their Pathfinder products? All monsters, for example, have a citation line showing the source.

To me, this practice is extremely beneficial to all parties: the source company gets their product pimped, while the "sourcing" company gets to use open material without having to republish redundant material.

I already have the Tome of Horrors, so I don't need or want the whole monster entry for a tentamort republished. But I sure do like having an abbreviated stat block provided in the text.

 

[Roudi]

To the best of my recollection, the OGL 1.0a does not prohibit listing the precise source of a particular piece of material in the body of the text - the license only governs the citation of that source in the Section 15. trancejeremy's point about possible conflict with the "claims compatability" part is valid, but it's a matter of both interpretation and how that in-body citation is written.

I suppose that would be how Paizo "gets away with it". It isn't restricted to begin with, and they don't write it in a way that others interpret as a claim of compatability.

 

[Roger]

I guess the best way to start this discussion is to ask: After 7 years, what is missing from OGL v1.0a?

Some time in court.

Yeah, I know none of us want to be that party, and we don't really want WotC to start swinging the lawyers around either. But really, as a legal document, the only way it's going to get any better is for it to see some challenges and some time in the courtroom, so we can see what parts of it stand up and what parts fall down.

That it's been around as long as it has, and used as extensively as it is, without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom -- kinda warms my heart about the whole industry. Sure, the cynics may say that there's just not enough money involved to make it worth suing anyone, but that hasn't exactly stopped people before.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

I'd like to see it add a clause so that it can play nice with Creative Commons. There is so much good CC stuff out there that one simply cannot port over to an OGL-covered work because these two just don't mix (thanks to the OGL specifically).