Is the Unearthed Arcana SRD online?

[Samothdm]

But there is also the fact that declaring something OGC is a potential selling point for a book. So let's say a customer picks up Skull&Bones and reads that 90% is OGC, he thinks "wow, that's so cool, I've read the OGL and that means I can get even more use out of these rules. I'll buy the book and use the OGC to create something cool in return."

So liberally declaring OGC is a potential selling point. It is something that is offered to me as a customer. "Buy this book, get all these cool toys, and 90% is OGC!"

A potential selling point for whom? For a publisher who wishes to use those specific rules in a product that he is writing, yes.

I fail to see how a book having OGC is a selling point for a non-publisher customer. It's irrelevant. Good material (or "cool toys", as worded above) is good material, whether it's open or not open. If it's good, it will get used in-game. Period.

(With the noted exception of a small percentage of extremists who refuse to buy any non-OGC).

So, then, for a non-publisher, the only reason that OGC is a "selling point" would be, "Hey, I can transcribe this entire book and post it for free."

And, despite people who seem to think that there is no "spirit of the law", the person who transcribes and posts an entire book of OGC for free is past the boundaries of using OGC in good faith.

I'll put it another way: Anybody who is claiming that it's perfectably acceptable to copy and post the entire OGC portions of UA for free should also never, ever, complain about getting a speeding ticket, especially if they are only going 5 miles over the speed limit on an open country road with no other cars in site.

It comes down to common sense, people. No one is asking you not to use open content from UA in your games, because they can't do that. It's open. What they're asking is to be reasonable and not provide for free what people should be willing to pay $24.46 to get on Amazon.

The argument that having it in a format that is easily reusable makes sense from a publisher standpoint, but then only publishers should be able to request it in that format from WotC. And, quite honestly, I wouldn't see the need for a publisher to have the entire book in PDF/RTF format, but only the specific section that they were referencing.

To be put another way, take a class, feat, PrC, template, monster, or spell (or multiples of the same) and put them in your own book. That's a perfectly reasonable use of OGC.

Having the entire OGC portions of the book posted for free online does not seem reasonable to me.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'll put it another way: Anybody who is claiming that it's perfectably acceptable to copy and post the entire OGC portions of UA for free should also never, ever, complain about getting a speeding ticket, especially if they are only going 5 miles over the speed limit on an open country road with no other cars in site.

So, what you're saying is, anyone claiming that it's okay to operate within the law shouldn't complain if they're caught if they break the law? Um, okay. I do agree that one should obey the law (with certain exceptions in the case of civil disobedience) and accept the penalty if one breaks the law. I also agree that it's okay to do things that the law permits. I think we can all agree on that, so let's try to stop dressing those statements up as arguments for or against this issue, because it's getting kind of silly.

The issue seems to be that on the one hand there are those who think that there's some sort of "gentlemen's agreement" that says that only publishers should be able to get their hands on open content, and/or that those publishers should have to comb through the books themselves to get it, despite what the OGL states (it states the contrary). On the other hand there are those who say that they're entitled to do whatever they're entitled to do with open content, and that by declaring something open content, a publisher is in fact inviting them to do so. Then there's the middle, who say that they have a right to treat open content like open content, but they will leave a polite time delay so that the publisher can make a profit on its work before the open content is distributed.

The middle ground looks to be the best. It follows the rules to the letter, giving everyone access to the material they are legally entitled to. It also provides the "gentlemen's" approach, by which the original publisher is given some respect and credit, as well as the chance to make the primary revenue from the OGC.

Now then, I think this is probably going to turn out to be a moot argument, because I don't anticipate a free .pdf replacing people's book-coveting behaviour. If you want the book, you'll buy it. If you don't, you won't. But in the second case you might get the .pdf. In the first case you also might, but you'll have the book, too.

Also, don't speed. It's dangerous. And you'll get a ticket.

 

[barsoomcore]

People, people.

A. It's perfectly simple to NOT release material under the OGL. Anyone who wants to can do so any time they like. Nobody is being FORCED to use this license. You don't want your material getting distributed by others? Easy: don't use a license which says, "Anyone who wants to can distribute this material."

B. Accomodating the wishes of another person has nothing to do with the ethics of obeying the law. If Chris Pramas doesn't like what I've put up on my Skull & Bones campaign site, he's welcome to ask me to remove it. If Andy Smith wishes I hadn't created the Modern System Reference document, he can go right ahead and ask me to remove it.

I would certainly want a very good explanation as to why they no longer wished to live up to the terms they originally published their book under. If it was because they had misjudged the market and found that people redistributing their OGC was hurting their sales, I might take my sites down.

On the other hand, I might not. I might say, "Well, next time, don't tell people they can redistribute it, how about that?" I don't know what I would do because they haven't asked me to do that. Indeed, Andy Smith has written to me and offered advice on the online Modern SRD, so I assume in fact that he is perfectly fine with the fact that I have created a complete online edition of all the OGC in that book.

This does not surprise me, since I know that Mr. Smith understands the OGL very well.

C. If it turns out that releasing material using the OGL is not a good way to make money, publishers will stop doing it. And that's okay. There's very little "on the line" here -- the industry doesn't depend on any particular result to this experiment. If OGC doesn't make money, publishers who are trying to make money will stop creating it. They can't stop publishers who don't care about money from using existing OGC, nor can they stop those publishers from creating more OGC, so who cares?

Whether or not the mythical "4th Edition" is open or closed is utterly beside the point. That has no effect on the existing OGC. It doesn't matter. It won't be some terrible death knell for the industry. It will mean that future gamers who want to play this game will have to buy it. And that's okay.

Everything's okay, people. It's okay to support publishers you like, and it's okay to do what you will with OGC. It's okay to release open content, and it's okay to release closed content. I think it's silly to get huffy about people who are obeying the law, but as you will.

I think the best plan is to decide what you think is the right thing to do, and to go ahead and do it. If other people aren't playing by the rules, point it out. If you think the rules are bad, fix them. But don't call people names because they play by the rules. That just makes it look like you don't know what the rules are.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I fail to see how a book having OGC is a selling point for a non-publisher customer. It's irrelevant. Good material (or "cool toys", as worded above) is good material, whether it's open or not open. If it's good, it will get used in-game. Period.

I'm not a publisher, but I play one on my website.

Seriously, as a non-business entity, OGC is very important to me. It determines what I can or can't put on my website. I want my rules available to my players (for convienience) and to the community (for the hell of it). Therefore, I am following the OGL. And let me tell you, having the OGL is great for fans. It gives us far more potential than publishers do. They need to worry about niche markets, general approval of the material, and having that material judged in comparison to what WotC declares the "Core" rules, sales, expenses, etc. Nope, us fans only got one thing to worry about: Our own, individual, unique group, without care of profit or popularity.

Also, unlike the dying days of TSR, I don't have to worry about getting a cease and desist letter, unless I break the rules that I agreed to follow just like everyone else (and fixing a pdf within the 30 day cure period is easy enough, even if that means cutting out an entire section to make the deadline in order to replace it later). Heck, the OGL lets me go well beyond the terms of "Fair Use" within a legal set of agreed upon rules.

(With the noted exception of a small percentage of extremists who refuse to buy any non-OGC).

"Extremist" is a loaded term, wouldn't you say? In this day and age, it's often used in conjunction with "Terrorist".

Oh, and as an FYI, I'm not opposed to buying non-OGC. Most of the books I have are mostly IP material (settings and setting-specific, etc.) that is either PI or otherwise simply not OGC. This doesn't phase me in the slightest; indeed, quality PI/closed content can be entertaining, inspiring, and even sometimes educational depending on the subject matter (Stone to Steel, for instance). A company producing lots of good stuff like that doesn't need to worry about their OGC being online because the value of the book isn't dependant on the OGC but on the non-Open portion of the product.

So, then, for a non-publisher, the only reason that OGC is a "selling point" would be, "Hey, I can transcribe this entire book and post it for free."

Or, "Hey, I can put all the rules my group uses in one place and not get our arses sued off for it."

And, despite people who seem to think that there is no "spirit of the law", the person who transcribes and posts an entire book of OGC for free is past the boundaries of using OGC in good faith.

And what of a distribution such as the Pocket Player's Handbook? It's just a prettied up SRD, after all. And it's not free; it's a commercial product.

Is that past the boundaries of using OGC in good faith?

Of course not.

Would the proposed (impending?!) SRD+ Project be beyond those boundaries?

I'll put it another way: Anybody who is claiming that it's perfectably acceptable to copy and post the entire OGC portions of UA for free should also never, ever, complain about getting a speeding ticket, especially if they are only going 5 miles over the speed limit on an open country road with no other cars in site.

At the same time, people driving 40 MPH on the Freeway shouldn't complain about everyone else driving so fast.

It comes down to common sense, people. No one is asking you not to use open content from UA in your games, because they can't do that. It's open. What they're asking is to be reasonable and not provide for free what people should be willing to pay $24.46 to get on Amazon.

I have a supplement here. It's got 94 pages of 100% text OGC (only art and graphics declared PI... Well, the cover too, but that's not part of the 94 pages.). I go through it and realize I'm going to re-use 90% of the product.

Alright, I get an idea. I contact the publisher and ask that I be allowed to list his product as the "needed to run" item (essentially gaining a seperate agreement as allowed in Section 7 of the OGL). I explained my setting and adjoining rules are online. That their rules would be online for free if no such statement was allowed.

They said, "no". Knowing that I would be transcribing most of the material from that book, they actually gave me the nod and said to do it, indicating that they had no concern about online material effecting their sales.

Now, here we have Bastion Press (and the product is Alchemy & Herbalists), standing on one side of the issue saying "go ahead". Then we have another publisher (Green Ronin via the link to CP's post) standing on the other side asking "don't".

Now, obviously, I see two completely opposing views on the matter, coming from two successful publishing sources within the OGL/d20 industry. Neither are right, as they cannot speak for anyone else in the matter, but neither are wrong. We simply have a case of one publisher being concerned that online material will effect their sales, while we have another publisher that is confident that it won't.

As such, any claims that this should not be done out of some form of "respect" for the publisher, or fair play, or anything other reason outside of the law, is essentially saying that we should cater to those that either (A) didn't understand the implications of the OGL (which I can assure you, WotC does indeed understand it), or (B) keep hoping the inevitability of Open Gaming "source libraries" won't occur; doing so, I might add, despite publishers like Fantasy Flight (who openly acknowledge website posting of their material within their material) or Bastion (who are so unconcerned about potential online-availability impact as to turn down what essentially would be free advertising).

The argument that having it in a format that is easily reusable makes sense from a publisher standpoint, but then only publishers should be able to request it in that format from WotC. And, quite honestly, I wouldn't see the need for a publisher to have the entire book in PDF/RTF format, but only the specific section that they were referencing.

Publisher != Professional.

And see my reply on Page 1 of this thread concerning the work load that would hit our dear friend in WotC Legal, Andy Smith. The poor kid is probably going bald as it is...

To be put another way, take a class, feat, PrC, template, monster, or spell (or multiples of the same) and put them in your own book. That's a perfectly reasonable use of OGC.

Would a collection of OGC in the form of an online library fall into that equation?

Having the entire OGC portions of the book posted for free online does not seem reasonable to me.

Depends on the book. However, there is something to consider. Take the list I made earlier (it's on page 2 or 3, I believe) and consider that most of that material will be on my website just because I am using it. Then consider another part posted on someone else's site for the same reason. And another, and another. Eventually, you're going to reach a point where the entire thing is available anyways; At the very least, the part you are interested in will likely be out there somewhere. And that's why I'd like to see this project and others like it be done; It would save so-much transcription time for so many people.

And, to be honest, I don't think this should stop with UA. I'd really like to see this be the kick-off for something new in Open Gaming.

 

[The Shadow]

All I know is that if a publisher asked me not to copy everything wholesale and post it on line, I would respect their wishes. Maybe it doesn't qualify as a breach of ethics, or morals, but I would call anybody who actually did that sleazy, and I feel no guilt in stating that.

I'm astonished. How can something that is not a breach of ethics or morals be "sleazy"? Is that term perhaps truly a synonym for "things JohnRTroy doesn't like"? If so, I would submit that that is a rather idiosyncratic use of words, bound to confuse others.

It's just common sense and curteousy.

How can it conceivably be discourteous to someone to do something (which is not unethical or immoral) that they have, of their own free will, explicitly spelled out that you may do, and indeed have positively INVITED you to do?

As someone else said, I'm all for promoting ethical behavior over the law. But I don't see what's unethical about treating open content as, well, "open". Nobody has had their arm twisted into releasing material as open content - it was a choice on their part, and I doubt it was a choice anybody made with eyes shut.

The six-month "grace period" idea is a splendid one. It is both generous and practical. But it's not common courtesy, not the minimum level of decency, it is generosity - going beyond the minimum. And this is the behavior you have seen fit to call "sleazy" and "unethical" - though you seem to have retreated somewhat from the latter.

I'll tell you what I find discourteous, and indeed rude - it's seeing people called names and their integrity called into question for no good cause.

I have yet to see anybody defend this other than quoting the letter of the agreement,

What is so difficult to understand about this concept? It escapes me. You make it sound like poor publishers out there are releasing open content while being hoodwinked, or led astray, or deceived by fine print. In fact, that they're being defrauded.

Do you really think publishers are unable to read the letter of the document? Or that they are incapable of understanding it? Sounds to me like you're insulting them at least as much as you're insulting the people here. Are you unaware that the OGL was CREATED by a game publisher because they hoped - apparently successfully - to make money off of it?

Publishers use the OGL because they think it will improve their bottom line. Maybe, in some cases, they turn out to be wrong. That's not because of any "discourtesy" or "sleaziness" on the part of their customers, it's because they made a bad business decision. Happens all the time. It's not a tragedy.

To hear you talk, anyone would think that open content was released only out of desperation, ignorance, stupidity, or duress. If you were right, the demise of the OGL would be the best thing that could possibly happen - but the people being unethical would be the people who created it, not the people who make use of it.

 

[Ranger REG]

Actually, this is what I predict,

D&D4 will be closed. The OGL will lose it's power as the core game becomes obsolete. Only the most die-hard advocates who also publish OGL will keep the game alive.

Also the most successful, especially those that have taken what is already OGC and turn it into a second-generation d20 rules engine. In fact, there have been a spawn of two-gen d20 rulesets: Spycraft, Mutants & Masterminds aka M&M Superlink (not true to the original but still popular in its own right), BESM d20 (use of character points to allow more PC's options), etc.

What's done cannot be undone ... like Linux. And as long as we have more contributors willing to contribute more OGC into the fold, the better.

 

[Ranger REG]

If this stops them from releasing future materials as OGC, then it would just lend credence to what some have suspected from the start: they want to eat their cake and have it too. If they truly believe in open-content development, and want to promote it, then they can't very well complain when it occurs. Doing so amounts to cashing in on the cachet of "open source" without actually supporting the ideals. [Which, given the details of the WotC OGL, i actually believe they are doing.]

Of course, one has to note: the original employee roster that released the OGL and d20STL back in 1999-2000 have now dwindled to less than a handful. Also noted, not everyone in WotC supports the Open Gaming Movement.

 

[Dogbrain]

I just don't want the law getting confused with what's best for the hobby, and I definitely don't want murky moral judgements clouding what are crystal-clear legal issues.

However, frothing-mad, narrow-minded fanatics want EXACTLY that to happen. They want to twist the law to say what they mean it to say. Nobody forces anyone to publish under OGL. It's a free choice. Anyone who publishes under OGL freely accepts all implications, thereof.

 

[Dogbrain]

So, what you're saying is, anyone claiming that it's okay to operate within the law shouldn't complain if they're caught if they break the law?

Sounds good to me. Or maybe there are people so stupid that they think that operating within the OGL is breaking the law.

 

[Setanta]

So, what you're saying is, anyone claiming that it's okay to operate within the law shouldn't complain if they're caught if they break the law? Um, okay.

I think the point here is about all the people that are basically saying the 'spirit' of the OGL is irrelevant, and only the letter of the agreement matters. I imagine a lot of the people who staunchly stand by the OGL as a legal way of getting stuff for free are also people who complain if they're pulled over going 5 mph (or even 8 kph) over the speed limit in broad daylight on an open road, saying "But I was driving perfectly safely!" That's a double standard. The OGL was not created for people to get free RPG stuff (though it legally allows that to an extent); it was created so that publishers could re-use each others material so that lots of people could publish for the same system, a system which in the end sells more player's handbooks for WotC.

I doubt anyone thinks there's anything wrong with someone putting OGC on their campaign websites so that all their players (even ones without the books) are on the same page.

However, I know I'd rather not see someone transcribe the entire text (or at least the OGC part) of UA or any other D20 product and simply post it for anyone to take. That hurts the whole D20 community, as it makes it less likely companies will release large quanitities of OGC, and more likely they'll release broken OGC. Whether releasing someone's OGC in this way actually affects sales or not, some publishers will have the perception that it does, and that's bad enough. Sure, they should know going in that it's legal for people to do it, but that doesn't change the fact that some publishers clearly don't like it, and might be more likely to avoid it as best they can in the future.

This is particularly important with regards to WotC. Some day, there will be a fourth edition. Hopefully, not for several more years, but some day, it will come. When it does, it's better for us as gamers if they continue to support the OGL. They're under no obligation to do so. Sure, they can't revoke the OGL, but it doesn't mean they have to continute supporting it. They don't have to ever add another word to it. If they start to feel that releasing stuff as OGC is hurting their sales, they'll probably stop releasing stuff as OGC, and that hurts us gamers and all the non-WotC D20 publishers.