Is it OK to distribute others' OGC for free?

[Halivar]

NOTE: This is not a troll. It's a detour for a threadjacking (by moi and others) of the UA SRD thread. Here are some issues that came up:

1) Some folks think that because content is OGC, it is okay to distribute it for free; others disagree vehemently (bias: I agree).
2) Some folks think the OGL is primarily (or solely) intended for the benefit of 3rd-party publishers, to make sharing of for-pay content easier and facilitate game development (bias: I disagree).
3) If an author signs over the legal right to redistribute (by, say, OGL), but then asks folks not to do so, is it unethical to go against his wishes? (bias: none; undecided).
4) Something to keep in mind is that Section 4 of the OGL explicitly grants a royalty-free license to use, modify, and redistribute OGC. Should we be following the letter of the license, or the spirit of it? What is the spirit of the license?

 

[Vrecknidj]

NOTE: This is not a troll. It's a detour for a threadjacking (by moi and others) of the UA SRD thread. Here are some issues that came up:

1) Some folks think that because content is OGC, it is okay to distribute it for free; others disagree vehemently (bias: I agree).

Distribution is distribution. So long as that distribution is legal, then it's okay. If someone's toes get stepped on, they're free to respond.

2) Some folks think the OGL is primarily (or solely) intended for the benefit of 3rd-party publishers, to make sharing of for-pay content easier and facilitate game development (bias: I disagree).

I think that the OGL has, in fact, increased the amount of available stuff for players and GMs. Some of it is quite good, some of it is crap. Some of it is created by people who were already "insiders" in the industry and, in effect, this is a license for them to work "after hours."

3) If an author signs over the legal right to redistribute (by, say, OGL), but then asks folks not to do so, is it unethical to go against his wishes? (bias: none; undecided).

If I give you a book and say "don't read this out loud to anyone," and then you do, it's only a problem if you've promised not to. Even then, it's only a problem if keeping that promise is more morally binding than reading aloud what you read. Comparing legal to moral is tricksy business, best left to Hobbits.

4) Something to keep in mind is that Section 4 of the OGL explicitly grants a royalty-free license to use, modify, and redistribute OGC. Should we be following the letter of the license, or the spirit of it? What is the spirit of the license?

It seems that determining the spirit of a law is far more open to relativistic claims than determining the letter of the law (though the letter of the law is, depending on the law, certainly often ambiguous or vague enough for plenty of interpretations).

By the way, what do you have in mind?

Dave

 

[Glyfair]

f I give you a book and say "don't read this out loud to anyone," and then you do, it's only a problem if you've promised not to. Even then, it's only a problem if keeping that promise is more morally binding than reading aloud what you read. Comparing legal to moral is tricksy business, best left to Hobbits.

There is a big difference between legal and ethical. I think the question on whether it is legal is clear, it is. The question as to whether it is ethical is another matter (I think that it isn't ethical).

I think that it's a common misconception currently that just because something is legal to do that it is ethical to do. That's just not necessarily true.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Not that anybody asked me, but I just don't think that the free distribution of OGC is right. I know, we all have different morals, and technically the redistribution of OGC is absolutely legal... but is it really in the spirit of the agreement?

I think this reflects the stumbling block that a lot of people are tripping over.

The spirit of the agreement is basically irrelevant. Primarily because noone knows what the spirit of the agreement actually is.

What is relevant is what the agreement says. Basically it says "when you designate something OGC, you make the IP free to anyone who follows these guidelines when republishing it".

That's what it says.

If you think that your IP is valuable enough that you do not want to see it distributed for free: DON'T RELEASE IT AS OGC. It's really that simple.

That said, companies should really be making the following judgement when they decide upon what content in a product is OGC.

"Will making this content OGC benefit me?"

It might benefit them by getting their product better coverage. It might benefit them by letting them slap a d20 logo on their stuff. It might benefit them by allowing them to beg gamers for donations to produce more such material.

It certainly doesn't give them the right to call anyone who copies the material (regardless of whether it's the day after or a week after, or 6 months after) unethical.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think that it's a common misconception currently that just because something is legal to do that it is ethical to do. That's just not necessarily true.

This is like someone else's arguement that it's unethical to buy the ingredients to make a cake, then make that cake and sell it or give it away as you choose. In fact it's a bit better than that, because on the back of the packet of cake mix, there is the text "It is ok for you to bake this cake and then sell it or give it away as you choose, as long as you include this packet with it".

I really don't think that the effect of making content open is in any way unclear. I don't see how a company could make their content open and not understand the implications of it.

I don't see anything forcing companies to make their content open.

I really don't see how doing what someone invites you to do is unethical.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

The spirit of the agreement is basically irrelevant. Primarily because noone knows what the spirit of the agreement actually is.

I think we can make a pretty good inference as to the spirit of the agreement. The idea behind the OGL is to promote the business of D&D.

That said, companies should really be making the following judgement when they decide upon what content in a product is OGC.

"Will making this content OGC benefit me?"

True. If people making free copies of their OGL starts happening too much, they'll leave the business, and the OGL will die.

At which point, what will have been gained?

 

[Ranger REG]

1) Some folks think that because content is OGC, it is okay to distribute it for free; others disagree vehemently (bias: I agree).

Legally, as long as you follow the terms of the Open Gaming License, you can distribute OGC for free.

Outside of that, it's a case-by-case basis. I have to think of the repercussion I might have not intended. Or if I am indeed sinister, then I have intended for that callous purpose.

2) Some folks think the OGL is primarily (or solely) intended for the benefit of 3rd-party publishers, to make sharing of for-pay content easier and facilitate game development (bias: I disagree).

That is the primary purpose of OGL and d20STL. Without it, WotC would have been like TSR who once threatened Mayfair Games and their Role-Aid products.

But it does offer a secondary benefit, assuming that third-party publishers are generous enough to provide SRD outside of their commercial products (for example, Guardians of Order offer Anime d20 SRD and Mecha d20 SRD).

3) If an author signs over the legal right to redistribute (by, say, OGL), but then asks folks not to do so, is it unethical to go against his wishes? (bias: none; undecided).

Hard to say. By default, I would respect their wishes especially if it is the product of their job. Even game designers and publishers need to get paid. If I redistribute OGC from their product for free, it would make it less and less attractive for others to get the product itself for a price.

4) Something to keep in mind is that Section 4 of the OGL explicitly grants a royalty-free license to use, modify, and redistribute OGC. Should we be following the letter of the license, or the spirit of it? What is the spirit of the license?

For serious game designers/publishers. Just as you have third-party software developers having access to Microsoft Windows code to make commercial Windows-compatible games, you have third-party publishers having access to the ruleset to make compatible or familiar yet playable commercial RPGs. Third parties make money off of d20 and in turn promote WotC's sale of their core rulebooks (D&D, d20 Modern, Star Wars, etc.).

 

[pennywiz]

I don't think people or companies should attempt to socially strongarm other people to get around being held to their end of a contract which they are fully aware of when signing and which they are happy to take advantage of when it suits them. Ethics only enter into it, for some, because the legal situation is indisputable.

 

[Saeviomagy]

At which point, what will have been gained?

All the stuff which was released and is still published in some free form or another.

The OGC and the OGL will only die when people stop using it, and that applies to both publishers AND players.

And this is assuming that the company producing the OGC gets zero benefit from doing so. A smart company can get a lot of benefit from giving stuff away. They usually consider the implications of doing so BEFORE they give that stuff away though.

 

[Roudi]

My understanding of the OGL is this - Open Gaming Content is fair game for anyone to compile, republish, use, abuse, etc. Permission OUGHT to be sought for using someone else's material, but that's a matter of good and gentlemanly (or gentlewomanly) business practices. Mind you, don't try and republish anyone's non-OGC material as OGC, or publish someone's OGC material as your own protected & copyrighted material. Once something is declared OGC, it stays that way.

As it stands, you should really evaluate if you need to use someone else's OGC without asking permission first. There's no good reason for just taking it, and you ought to remain professional when doing business in the RPG industry. Even if you don't ask for permission, you still have to include your own OGL with your product, and it's Section 15 has to reference the source of the OGC material you've used. Finally, I'd recommend against simply reprinting what someone else has written - readers notice that kind of stuff right away, and I've heard a lot of RPG buyers complain about buying a product where good chunks of the material were just ripped from somewhere else. So, consider these, and determine seriously if you really need this person's OGC material or not.