Is it OK to distribute others' OGC for free?

[Cergorach]

What I don't do is use all of the OGC from a product. And, at times, my OGC use is as limited as the name of an organization or god (as long as it's OGC) and even then just a passing mention. For those without the original product my reference means nothing -- for those with the original product it creates a sense that my product will slot into their campaign.

And this is?
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=352&products_id=2090&
Sure, there is some new content, but that's very little...
;-)

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Hmm. I definitely don't know what to make of that.

I know exactly what I make of it.

 

[Cergorach]

But no NEW stuff will be produced.

If enough people do as you propose, WoTC will have two choices:

Let D&D die as a business. Which means that eventually, D&D dies as a game, except for a few people running 20 year old free content off the web.

or create a DND 4.0 that is incompatible with 3.0/3.5 and revoke the OGL/d20 licenses.

EDIT: The third choice, as Philreed has pointed out, is for "crippled" OGC to become the industry standard, in order to make it as difficult as possible for people to strip out the content.

Which do you prefer?

The other choice, the one where individual writers can make a decent living and people are willing to pay people to deliver quality work. I for one am not looking to make a living writing game material, i have a decent job already.

 

[PJ-Mason]

Well, in case I wasn't clear I'm not making such a change at any time that I know of. It was more of a hypothetical to help illustrate my feelings on the subject.

***Some of this may sound snarky, but its not meant that way. I swear it***

What bothers you the most about Cergorach's (proposed or actual) methods? Is it that he is doing it for free? Would it be okay if he charged for the stuff? Or is it that you are not getting a cut of the action?

Does WOTC complain about how YOU use THEIR OGC to make a living? Or in the case of Cergorach...not make a living? Once you become a publisher who uses/sells OGC, you have to learn to let go of the stuff you create and release as OGC. Because then its not yours anymore. Its OURS. Or you can restrict the OGC in your books. Which is cool. People might then accuse you of not following the spirit of the OGL "movement" yourself, however. Slippery slope time.

Also, i really don't think it will affect your sales that much. People who take it for free are usually not the ones who were going to pay for it anyway. If Cergorach's free pdfs get popular, then you are getting a lot of promotion, since he has to clearly identify the OGC contributors in his productions. Is this the only way to look at it? No. But its the way to look at it if you don't want an ulcer, or if you don't want to turn into a "we don't trust our customers to do right by us" kinda of company. Won't name names here. cough*drm!*cough!

 

[philreed]

And this is?
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=352&products_id=2090&
Sure, there is some new content, but that's very little...
;-)

That was designed using a released SRD and, to be honest, was done just to see what sales were like on the SRD PDFs. While working on it, I couldn't just make it the straight SRD so I tossed in new material. I also released that new material, for free, at www.gamewyrd.com.

I've also released my own 101 Divine Spell Components as a free SRD in RTF. Why? Because sales were slow on it but I thought the idea was cool. The slow sales quickly turned to no sales after I posted the free RTF version.

EDIT: And check the demo. I don't think most of the for-sale SRDs have artwork or design anything like that. Also, I did not release something that the company hadn't already made available for free.

Actually, that's my point. For large, full projects, it should be the decision of the original publisher whether or not it's released as a free SRD.

 

[Cergorach]

I know exactly what I make of it.

Oh, please explain.
I am not that cold blooded, but someone asking me nicely to drop something without a damn goo reason better be someone that is close to me or someone i want to be close to me. The reason for whole:

Hmm... Yeah sure, but in return i want an electronic version of the updated book. In return i'll not distribute the OGC in there (or in the v.3.0 books) for the next two years. And i want to sign a contract."

This is nothing less then ensuring that no one is pulling my leg. Saying that your working on new release is one thing, actually working on it is another one. And if they actually informed the public of their supposed rerelease then i wouldn't have done all this work for nothing. Let's not forget that this is all theoratical, Perpetrated Press isn't working on anything as far as i know.

 

[philreed]

What bothers you the most about Cergorach's (proposed or actual) methods? Is it that he is doing it for free? Would it be okay if he charged for the stuff? Or is it that you are not getting a cut of the action?

You're right, that is pretty snarky.

What bothers me is that he's planning to release a full product for free. It should be WotC's choice to make. What he's doing is perfectly legal and allowed by the license but, I feel, it has too great a potential for negative effects down the line.

Do I wish WotC had released an UA SRD? Absolutely! There's some great new material in there and I've actually released some of it in products. But very small sections and not for free.

It has nothing to do with me "getting a cut of the action." Hell, an online version of UA is likely to be a very useful tool for me. But, as I've said too many times, I feel it's WotC's choice to release such a tool.

 

[Henry]

I'm not a lawyer, and this certainly doesn't constitute legal advice, but there are a few points that I want to clarify, based on dozens of comments from several WotC business managers on down to lawyers who produce game material:

But no NEW stuff will be produced.

It won't happen. Quality will suffer, as the current crop of professionals adapt or leave the business, but there won't be a cessation of people using the Open Gaming License as long as there's a gamer who thinks they can do it better.

If enough people do as you propose, WoTC will have two choices:

Let D&D die as a business. Which means that eventually, D&D dies as a game, except for a few people running 20 year old free content off the web.

I would certainly hope that D&D is a viable enough commodity for someone to purchase and make active. It's got too much recognition not to. Could you imagine the name brands of Kleenex or Charmin, or Hardee's or McDonald's lying fallow for years with no one using them?

or create a DND 4.0 that is incompatible with 3.0/3.5 and revoke the OGL/d20 licenses.

The Open Gaming License cannot be revoked, because version 1.0 of the license, and all currently released material as OGC under it, is open to use in perpetuity. The d20 System Trademark License can be edited or revoked, and we lose the d20 trademark that ties so many products together, but that's all. 4th edition could certainly be all closed content, by WotC not releasing another SRD for it, but the existing market will still have complete authority to make the license sink or swim according to supply & demand.

EDIT: The third choice, as Philreed has pointed out, is for "crippled" OGC to become the industry standard, in order to make it as difficult as possible for people to strip out the content.

Which do you prefer?

Sadly, I think this is the most logical choice. Because the license cannot legally distinguish between "end user" and "publisher", legally there's nothing wrong here. In truth, it makes more sense to do it in Malhavoc-style than just releasing everything carte-blanche; the original content MUST be purchased to have the original material without gaps, yet publishers can do the (harder) work of using a good mechanic as needed. However, asking a publisher to not change his or her practices when the 99% OGC they published is being reborn in another product with a title change is being unrealistic.

 

[Halivar]

What bothers me is that he's planning to release a full product for free. It should be WotC's choice to make.

You could not possibly be more correct. It's WotC's IP, and WotC's choice. They chose OGL.

 

[Alan Shutko]

It seems to me that the the OGL is the price one has to pay for using OGC. Is it ethical for those using OGC to take the benefit, but to ask not to pay the price? To ask others not to use the same freedom they were offered?