Is the Unearthed Arcana SRD online?

[woodelf]

You seem to have mistaken me. What I was suggesting, more or less, was that incorporating UA into the SRD would have this effect, which just "feels" wrong, if you take my meaning.
[snip]
Thus, my statement was one of line-items appearing within the SRD's Section 15 (within the Legal.pdf file) right from the start rather than line-items appearing from using material from UA itself or a UA-SRD file.

No, i got your meaning. And my response is "so what?" So what if the D20SRD's Sec.15 entry includes references to material that you aren't reusing? Is this really any worse than the current situation (with the poor credit-tracking that, as you observe, forces you to regularly include credit for materials you aren't using)?

 

[Wasgo]

There is a key distinction between OGC and OGL that isn't addressed. Software under the OGL isn't sold. The OGC in published books is. OGC has as its main use, the ability to reuse materials from other publishers in your own works and this is what we currently see it used for. Unlike OGL software, making it freely available will hurt them.

In terms of posting full works, Andy Collins has already spoken against it. Chris Pramas does so here: http://www.greenronin.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5644

When discussing the PDF works of some companies like The Game Mechanics, the entire book is pdf and could be converted into OGC redistributable in under an hour. So I guess my question is, when OGC is included liberally, what should really be considered fair? For me that's respecting the publisher and author's wishes, but how do other people feel about it?

 

[Darkness]

Darkness; I agree with what you say. ... But - as far as I can see - none of that was Andy's point. Andy's point was it is a bad thing for people to make a UA SRD, he's wrong, but even so has still managed to sabotage the project, and make a bunch of people who were trying to do a really neat thing for others feel unreasonably bad about themselves.

Yeah, well. I'm just trying to figure out why Andy is saying what he is saying and whether people communicating better with WotC could have helped avoid upsetting him.

 

[barsoomcore]

I never felt is was in the spirit of the OGL to allow people to blatently rip off the content of books and put them out there for free on-line for people to use. Nor was the spirit to provide a new game system.

Are we back to this again? Please:

There is no "spirit" to the OGL. It is a legal document. If you decide to release material using it, you agree to abide by all the conditions within it. If you're not prepared to have someone create and distribute (say) a pdf containing your OGC, then don't release your material as OGC.

I don't understand why people keep pretending the OGL doesn't say what it does. It is a very clear document. It's easy to understand. The consequences of using it are well-understood.

If Publisher A wants other people to refrain from distributing Publisher A's material, Publisher A ought to choose a method of distribution that doesn't explicitly allow them to do so. I have no problem with publishers who distribute non-OGC material. That's perfectly acceptable to me. They worked hard on it and they have every right to protect their investment.

But if you release a product using a particular license, surely you can't complain if other people abide by the terms of that license? I don't understand why this is even a topic of discussion. Read the OGL. If you have any questions, you haven't understood the document.

I have NO desire to cost anyone money or to profit on other people's hard work. I don't want anyone in this industry to NOT earn money. I do not want to take what isn't rightfully mine. But the OGL is a very clear document that does not require interpretation, or the idea of a "spirit" to be understood. That's the nature of legally binding documents -- they allow us to avoid the hassle of interpretation where everybody has a different understanding.

If we think that the OGL requires an understanding of its spirit in order to be used, it is a failure.

 

[Maggan]

Fair or unfair

So I guess my question is, when OGC is included liberally, what should really be considered fair? For me that's respecting the publisher and author's wishes, but how do other people feel about it?

I don't know what I think is "fair". I honestly don't know.

Of course it is fair to respect the authors and publishers and their opinion.

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!"

Is it then "fair" to turn around and say to a customer that "yes, 90% is OGC but I strongly feel that you should not use it according to the OGL. I would like you to use it according to my wishes, which you may or may not have been privy to. Thanks for asking."

Companies enhance the value of their books by declaring OGC. This potentially draws more customers. So the companies benefit from declaring OGC. When are we as customers to benefit from this?

Not at all? Is that fair? If OGC is only meant to be used by other publishers, then I think the "movement" is heading in the wrong direction, and I think another license would be in order to cover this use. So that we as customers get clear info on what OGC means.

But then there's the case of whether or not liberal declaration of OGC enhances sales. I would like to think that to be true, but I don't. So GRR wanting to hold onto their packaging of their OGC as the only source is understandable. At least if sales would be hurt by people republishing the OGC of a whole book.

I don't know. GRR probably knows more about this than I do. They sure make great books.

But it seems that even WotC don't really know what's going to happen to sales if a total republishing of OGC content is done for free, at least if I remember some of Andy Collins' comments before the release correctly.

UA is a trial. And I think it is fair of WotC or individuals attached to WotC to let that trial run its course without trying to influence the outcome. How else will we know?

And what is fair? And to whom? WotC? The customers? Other publishers? The OGL movement?

I don't know. I honestly don't know. I would like to see a huge repositry of OGC collected in one place. All OGC ever published. Would this break the companies producing OGC? I hope not, because if it does, someting is very wrong with the building blocks that this OGL-thing is resting on.

Cheers

Maggan

 

[RavenProject]

@barsoomcore
Very good posting. Couldn't agree more.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I don't understand why people keep pretending the OGL doesn't say what it does. It is a very clear document. It's easy to understand. The consequences of using it are well-understood.
...
If we think that the OGL requires an understanding of its spirit in order to be used, it is a failure.

Well, despite what's legal, people have a moral responsibility not to exploit loopholes and be sleazy, but that's neither here nor there.

I do think the OGL is going to be a failure for Wizards. That's what's happening. I doubt they will use such an open license anymore, because what's happening is the great experiment is starting to fail. For every publisher like Necromancer which focuses on doing good works and creating adventures and new stuff, we have people who want to just strip everything from published products and make it available for nothing as a "free game", and when publishers complain they just balk and talk about the letter of the contract.

How people behave will probably determine the future of this license. Right now, I don't think it's looking good to survive. I remember Ryan saying the company is divided internally. I actually hope that they come up with a more realistic license and limit it to a dozen or so publishers so (a) the market doesn't get flooded and (b) the people using the license have solid business ethics.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

So I guess my question is, when OGC is included liberally, what should really be considered fair? For me that's respecting the publisher and author's wishes, but how do other people feel about it?

See, to me, the publisher's and author's wishes are inconsequential. Indeed, these wishes seem to ignore (and even conflict with) the agreement they make when they release Open Gaming material...

OGL 1.0a, (1c): "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute;

For this dicussion, "publicly display" is the primary topic.

OGL 1.0a, (1a): "Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content;

and

OGL 1.0a, (4): Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the extact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

So WotC, as the "Contributer" per section 1a, have agreed to allow me (the "You" in section 4) to do anything I wish so long as I abide by the terms of the License, which allows, per section 1c, public displays of OGC material. Sure, writers and publishers can wish for their material not to be reproduced; They may even ask that it not be done. However, by using the OGL, they have already given their consent, per section 3 (Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this license.).

 

[JohnRTroy]

See, to me, the publisher's and author's wishes are inconsequential.

And that attitude, to me, is what seperates ethical publishers from unethical ones.

An established publisher will be greatful for the license, will likely abide requests made by the publisher, and will work to keep goodwill with the licensor and the community at large.

The less-than-ethical person will do what he can to exploit it, use the letter of the law to exuse, and try to get away with whatever he or she can do.

I think of it akin to an "all you can eat" plan. You can technically eat all the food at the buffet, but you tend to know when you've done too much.

If we use GR as a example, the OGL is facilitated so you can put those rules in an adventure setting of your own.

Ethical Publisher: I take Skull and Bones and create a supermodule that references those rules, and thus encourages those to purchase a GR product. It's a multiplier effect. We both benefit.

Unethical Publisher: I decide to strip-mine all the rules about watercraft in an Ultimate Water Comprendium. I take all the OGL and then publish it--I steal market share from the GR stuff. I win at the expense of all. If I am a free internet compiler (or anarchist), I end up providing this commodity for free, reducing the perceived value of all the hard work and thus hurting the whole industry.

Again, it's a question of ethics and morality, not law.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

And that attitude, to me, is what seperates ethical publishers from unethical ones.

Glad to see you are capable of making such brilliant character assessments based on a single subject in a single thread. Here's one to consider: We have two publishers. One states in their books that posting their material on a website is fine. The other states that they would prefer it that such didn't happen. Which one of these is the "ethical" publisher: The one that fully acknowledges the implications of the aggreement they made (which I illustrate above) by using the OGL or the one that would try to label those implications as "petty".

To me, the publisher that has an "eyes wide open" approach is the more ethical; They realize what Open Gaming is and embrace it and all of its ramifications, and they don't try to call other people "petty" or "sleazy" for doing what is explicitly allowed by the OGL and thus agreed to allow.

An established publisher will be greatful for the license, will likely abide requests made by the publisher, and will work to keep goodwill with the licensor and the community at large.

There would be no reason to "keep goodwill" if the licensor understood and accepted exactly what making their material OGC means. Bad will only seems to foster when someone suddenly realizes that they have no control over their material and seek to discredit those people that would try to use it.

The less-than-ethical person will do what he can to exploit it, use the letter of the law to exuse, and try to get away with whatever he or she can do.

This is the "cup's half empty" view; From the other side, one would say, "they knew or should have known exactly what they were agreeing to when they used the OGL."

A publisher not liking the results of the OGL does not make OGC re-users unethical for re-using the OGC in question.

I think of it akin to an "all you can eat" plan. You can technically eat all the food at the buffet, but you tend to know when you've done too much.

If we use GR as a example, the OGL is facilitated so you can put those rules in an adventure setting of your own.

Ethical Publisher: I take Skull and Bones and create a supermodule that references those rules, and thus encourages those to purchase a GR product. It's a multiplier effect. We both benefit.

Unethical Publisher: I decide to strip-mine all the rules about watercraft in an Ultimate Water Comprendium. I take all the OGL and then publish it--I steal market share from the GR stuff. I win at the expense of all. If I am a free internet compiler (or anarchist), I end up providing this commodity for free, reducing the perceived value of all the hard work and thus hurting the whole industry.

Actually, unless S&B has some kind of Co-Adaptability License or permission from GR to reference S&B was obtained by an independant agreement, the so-called "Ethical" publisher is in violation of Section 7 of the OGL.

That's funny.

Again, it's a question of ethics and morality, not law.

No, it's a question of Law. Trust me on this. Ethics and morality have been discussed on the OGF mailing lists many times and thus far have proven to be meaningless compared to the wording of the license.