Is the Unearthed Arcana SRD online?

[DaveStebbins]

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 agree.

I also think we should discuss things without passing judgements and using language like "sleazy" and "unethical" to categorize those who disagree with us. Such attacks just cast a negative reflection upon the person posting them.

That is, however, as you say, neither here nor there. :\

 

[Breakdaddy]

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.

If by "failing" you mean generating more revenue for WOTC in the form of greater core rulebook sales I would say you are right. I submit to you that this OGL movement will go away about as quickly as the software open source movement and Linux (which is to say, it ain't goin' anywhere!).

 

[JohnRTroy]

If by "failing" you mean generating more revenue for WOTC in the form of greater core rulebook sales I would say you are right. I submit to you that this OGL movement will go away about as quickly as the software open source movement and Linux (which is to say, it ain't goin' anywhere!).

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.

I actually see how this pans out as a prediction of open source. It doesn't take into account economic models and how people get paid. If the game industry dries up because people post everything on the net and it becomes as small as the wargaming culture, it will show what could happen to the software industry if a company like Microsoft released Windows under the GPL.

 

[jeffh]

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.

I'm all for upholding ethics and morality over law. I utterly fail, however, to see anything unethical about the behaviour you describe, and as far as I can see you haven't even tried to explain your objection to it; you seem to assume it's self-evident what the problem is, but that's not the case, your use of loaded words in describing it notwithstanding.

If you strip out all the phrases like "unethical", "steal" and "strip-mine" from your description of the second publisher, what's left simply describes what the OGL, which the original publisher agreed to of their own free will, clearly and explicitly gives them permission to do. They're not exploiting an obscure loophole, they're doing something that the OGL was deliberately designed to allow, that the people who created the OGL (by which I mean first and foremost Ryan Dancey) have been clear about allowing from the very beginning, and that according to comments in this thread, is very much in keeping with Dancey's own intentions and vision for the OGL. Moreover, Woodelf's comments about the shelf life of gaming products are very relevant here - the argument that the proposed SRD would take money out of WotC's pockets is questionable at best (though I personally would want such an SRD to appear, at the soonest, in mid-July, just to make sure - that gives the sort of six-month window that has been talked about elsewhere here).

There is even a case to be made for the view that the only unethical one in your examples is the original publisher, who agrees to the OGL but then seeks to, in effect, back out of this agreement by trying to stop people from doing what their voluntary agreement to the license quite clearly allows them to do. When politicians do this we call it "talking out of both sides of their mouth" or worse. In more concrete terms, if WotC or Green Ronin don't want people to use their OGC, why are they releasing it under the OGL in the first place?

Edit - replaced my original last paragraph with a much better one.

 

[JohnRTroy]

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.

Yes, but what I think will be the consequences of this will be that publishers will start being more limited in what parts of their products become released under the OGL. I guess it's wrong to trust humanity to not be greedy and exploitive.

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."

Yes, and try another example.

A family comes on hard times and misses a rent payment due to a bank mixup. Landlord 1 works out a deal with them, understands that it was just a one-time thing. Landlord 2 starts eviction immediately. By rights, Landlord 2 is following the letter of the law, but is it right? You ignore all of these variables in your arguments.

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.

Maybe you didn't understand that the first example was done agreeing to the OGL. I don't follow your criticism of it.

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.

Basically, you are saying that it doesn't matter if the gaming industry goes bankrupt because Wizards was stupid for releasing such a license agreement. Well congratulations then. This short term thinking will be the death of the hobby.

 

[Voadam]

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.

I actually see how this pans out as a prediction of open source. It doesn't take into account economic models and how people get paid. If the game industry dries up because people post everything on the net and it becomes as small as the wargaming culture, it will show what could happen to the software industry if a company like Microsoft released Windows under the GPL.

My understanding of WotC business strategy for D&D is that everything is designed to sell Player's Handbooks.

The WotC supplements are support for people who buy PHs and all the third party supplements are support for people who buy PHs and all the online SRD material (including all the PH rules) are there to support people who buy PHs.

My understanding is that this has been a successful business strategy, including the release of the online srd free.

I would not predict that a 4th edition would be closed. I would predict WotC would open it to gain the same benefits it does from its 3rd edition strategy.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Again, I don't predict that there will be no licensing of the game, but it might not be OGL. It might just be a limited license for a few publishers, ending the glut and the on-line products.

The point I am getting at is attitudes like "Caveat Emptor" about the license will hasten the death of support of OGL games.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Yes, but what I think will be the consequences of this will be that publishers will start being more limited in what parts of their products become released under the OGL. I guess it's wrong to trust humanity to not be greedy and exploitive.

Or, they could work on providing more books that aren't 95% crunch. In other words, they could improve the quality of the non-OGC material thus providing a means for their product to retain viability after their material has been distributed through another source.

Yes, and try another example.

A family comes on hard times and misses a rent payment due to a bank mixup. Landlord 1 works out a deal with them, understands that it was just a one-time thing. Landlord 2 starts eviction immediately. By rights, Landlord 2 is following the letter of the law, but is it right? You ignore all of these variables in your arguments.

This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Why? Because the OGL stipulates that the license is irrevocable (Section 4) unless certain conditions arise (12 and 13). What most of your argument sums up as is an attempt to use "morality" to bypass the conditions of Section 2; as there is no legal way to add conditions to re-use, there is instead going to be a "social stigma" attached to anyone that distributes the material in a way the original Contributor doesn't agree to.

And that is unethical.

Maybe you didn't understand that the first example was done agreeing to the OGL. I don't follow your criticism of it.

Incorrect. Your "super module" will fit one of the following four conditions:

1. Redistribute the OGC material making S&B irrelevant to the product.
2. Distribute derived material without mention of S&B.
3. Distribute derived material referencing S&B in violation of Section 7 of the OGL.
4. Distribute derived material referencing S&B with special permission from Green Ronin to do so.

#1 is what you are indicating you don't want to do, so it's out. Baring #1, #2 is all you have left within the bounds of the OGL, but this leaves your customers with a bunch of numbers/terms that have no meaning to them unless they happen to own the unidentified book. #3 is like #2, but to give the reader a point of reference, you indicate co-adaptability with S&B, which Section 7 of the OGL forbids. #4 is like #3 but you have obtained a seperate agreement with Green Ronin to mention S&B as Section 7 of the OGL does allow, but that agreement is outside of the OGL itself.

So when I buy your "super module", which of these conditions will I find?

Basically, you are saying that it doesn't matter if the gaming industry goes bankrupt because Wizards was stupid for releasing such a license agreement. Well congratulations then. This short term thinking will be the death of the hobby.

See, unlike you, I don't see "the death of the hobby". If anything, the hobby has been liberated: The OGL allows anyone to produce gaming material. We no longer need WotC or even D&D. I'm not worried if there will be a 4E. Hell, I'm not worried about WotC going bankrupt. The OGL has freed the d20 system from the decisions and fate of one company.

And, to examplify my stance, I submit the following list:

Complete Warrior
Book of Exalted Deeds
Deities & Demigods
Draconomicon

These are four books that I have not purchased because of a lack of OGC within them (and if I looked more at a few of their other titles or their upcoming titles, I'd likely find more). If they were opened up, even if the rules were ported directly into the SRD, I would be at Amazon in a heart-beat ordering them. Why? Because I support Open Gaming and I support the companies that contribute to it by buying the products that I feel make worthy contributions. Heck, UA is the first WotC product I've bought since the BoVD, reason being that I was tired of trying to skirt-around the topic of rules I use but can't include on my website (such as Sanity and W&V) without contacting Andy Smith at WotC legal to reference the material (for the record, my current list of "permitted" references includes MotP, BoVD, OA, MaoF, FRCS, and the 3.0 splat-books).

 

[Wasgo]

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.

I think most publishers would love fans using the OGC to create new material. Most of them see that's what it's for (beyond the few publishers who try to render an abstruse as possible license.) There's a big difference between that and putting the whole thing stripped of PI on the web.

Personally, I don't even dislike the idea of an online respository. Having access to a large amount of OGC in one place would be really cool. But a single document listing all the free content from one product...I don't care if it is legal, it still bugs me.

 

[barsoomcore]

JohnRTroy:

Have you any data for your assertion that Wizards intends to move away from an OGL-supported release strategy? Are sales of the Player's Handbook especially poor? Is the RPG portion of WotC losing money? Are other publishers failing to make money? Is the industry actually dying?

I'm sure the bubble of the early d20 days is collapsing, but I'm not at all sure that d20 publishers are unable to make ends meet. Seems to me that Green Ronin, Privateer Press, Mongoose, Sword & Sorcery are all doing pretty well. Now, I'm far from being very well-informed on this, but if you have data that suggests things are as dire as you say they are, I would want to see that before taking your word on it.

I wanted to address your specific example:

A family comes on hard times and misses a rent payment due to a bank mixup. Landlord 1 works out a deal with them, understands that it was just a one-time thing. Landlord 2 starts eviction immediately. By rights, Landlord 2 is following the letter of the law, but is it right? You ignore all of these variables in your arguments.

The misleading portion of this example is that it posits the publisher as the hard-done-by family who were temporarily unable to meet their obligations. Obviously, it's NICE when people make allowances for others who are unlucky.

But WotC cannot be considered UNLUCKY to have released UA using the OGL. Nor can Green Ronin be considered to have suffered a temporary setback by releasing Skull and Bones under the OGL. d20 publishers are CHOOSING to use a particular license. Presumably they are doing so with the expectation that the conditions of that license will be upheld.

A better example would be a tenant who signs a lease agreement, and then expresses surprise that they are expected to pay their rent each month. Calls the landlord "sleazy" for asking for that rent. Now, it would be NICE of the landlord not to insist on having the rent paid, sure. On occasion the landlord might even do that, if they understood the tenant was temporarily unlucky. But if the tenant had no intention of living up to the conditions of the lease, why did they sign it in the first place? Who's being sleazy now?

The OGL is specifically designed so that material released under it can be freely distributed by anyone who cares to. That's not exploiting a loophole, that's using the license for what it was designed for.

And as far as WotC potentially releasing no further materials under the OGL, that doesn't mean "the death of the hobby" -- at least, not as far as I'm concerned. The SRD has already been released and cannot be rescinded and suits my needs just fine.

So I don't see a downside to people obeying the law. I don't see it as unethical. And I certainly don't see it as sleazy.