Is the Unearthed Arcana SRD online?

[Bendris Noulg]

Just to pick nits: the WotC OGL is only a mostly-agreed-upon set of rules--there are still quite a few ambiguous bits. And, most specifically, i'm not confident that WotC *does* understand it perfectly. Their latest PI declaration with the revised D20SRD took almost everyone by surprise, as it seems to be not supportable by the license, implying that either (1) they don't understand the license, (2) they understand it but don't like it and are hoping no one will challeng them on it, or (3) the license is poorly worded, and doesn't say what it's supposed to mean, so everyone else doesn't understand it--raising the question of whether the intent or the wording of a contract is the important part, if the drafter does a poor job of translating the intent into wording.

See, I think the basis of it (OGC is shared, PI is not) is agreed upon by all (at least, that much is clear enough that there is no real debate). The rest falls into details. It's this ambiguity that has me more open to the concept of "crippled" OGC than others are; Of course, nothing prevents me from "uncrippling" those same rules, and I personally am opposed to releasing my own material "crippled".

As for WotC's PI designation, I see a 4th possibility: on occassion, I stumble upon something in the SRD that isn't supposed to be there (page numbers, book references, etc.), so the PI designation could very well just be a safety net for oversights in the pre-SRD scrub down, preventing terms/titles from becoming OGC because of an editing error. Although it's not a perfect example, we can consider the fact that, because of certain spells, the Shadow Plane, Ethereal Plane, Elemental Planes, Astral Plane and Outer Planes in concept and name were already OGC long before the MotP material was ported into the SRD. I also recall, after Mind Flayers, Displacer Beasts, and other critters were removed from the Draft SRD and thus never really released, that "final" versions of some things made mention of "the skin of a Displacer Beast" and another section (the summon [X] spells, I do believe) still listed creatures that weren't OGC (in short, the names of these things are OGC because they appeared in the released SRD, but the things themselves are not).

Does the "safety net" theory seem close to mark?

Yeah, i'm still waiting for an answer on that one, too. But, when talking about subjective qualities like "good faith", neither can you simply declare that it clearly isn't stepping over the line--perhaps it is (even though it's perfectly legal). Though i'm inclined to say it isn't, seeing as how WotC said, right from teh start, "sure, you can do that", and qualified it not with "...but we don't want you to" but rather "...but you'll fail".

I seem to recall that interview (Ryan Dancey, here at ENWorld, right? Can't find it in the archives anymore...). At any rate, I don't think it's as "over the line" as it may appear. After all, it's purpose (small formatted rules content for easy portability) is clearly beyond the capability of the Player's Handbook (full sized and loaded with access information that may or may not be relevant to your individual game, such as Grayhawk deities and the like).

So, let's quantify the question with a few more examples:

Is Green Ronin's Pocket Grimoire: Arcane over that line? How about their Pocket Grimoire: Divine? Pocket Magica?

Is Mongoose's Ultimate Feats or Ultimate Prestige Classes over the line?

I guess I don't see there being a question in regards to compiling OGC for distribution; the companies are doing it, have been doing it, and will continue to do it. So it's either wrong (companies and fans can't do it) or it's right (companies and fans can do it), but it can't be right for some (companies can) and wrong for others (fans can't). Mongoose has done it. Green Ronin has done it. d20X is doing it. Ryan Dancey is (presumably, based on his proposed idea back in January) doing it (then again, he might not). Cergorach is doing it, as stated in this thread. And who knows how many others.

To which, I again state: Any business model that fails to take the re-distribution of OGC into account is a poorly thought out business model when applied to the Open Gaming environment which is designed around the concept of OGC re-distribution.

 

[Setanta]

Bendris Noulg wrote
Think of it this way: If there is a "spirit" of the OGL, it is the opening of game rules for redistribution by other sources, which the OGL permits and promotes, while protecting the artistic investment (fiction, backstory, art, etc.) and corporate image (logos, icons, company names, etc.) under the umbrella of Product Identity.

Sure, but the intent was that that redistribution be done by other sources who are using previous OGC in a published work, so that not every company is reinventing the wheel with every product.

We're getting away from the original complaint here. I'm sure if we asked Andy Collins, he'd say he'd be happy to see UA's OGC in other publishers work. That's clearly in the spirit of the OGL. What is not in the spirit of the OGL is people transcribing whole works so that others can use that work for free.

Yet my big project of the day (after cleaning up the first draft release of the Aedon Bestiary) is to transcribe a set of alternate magical abilities from a book that has the previously mentioned "Rules are OGC, text is not" condition on it.

I would not defend a company that does that; making it difficult to tell what is OGC and what is not OGC is not only against the spirit of the OGL, it's against the letter. That's not the point though. Neither that company, nor one that clearly designates OGC, wants their hard work to be given away for free. Some people do- I gather you're going to post your Aedon bestiary for anyone's use, and that's great. However, if a company is in business to make money selling D20 stuff, I can understand them not wanting people to give away their hard work for free. And no need to rehash the fact that they entered into the OGL, blah blah blah. If they perceive that people copying and posting whole books hurts their business, then I'm sure many publishers would consider releasing less OGC, or crippling OGC as best they can. Some wouldn't, sure, but some would, and that's bad for us, the consumers.

No, it's not. The person going over the speed limit is breaking the law and trying to say "I only broke it a little" to get out of their ticket. By contrast, reproducing/redistributing OGC is not against the law because the OGL is written specifically to permit and promote that very course of action.

Apparently I didn't expand on this enough. Someone who says "but 5 mph over the speed limit is safe and thus within the spirit of the speed limit laws, thus it's unfair to get a ticket" is setting a double standard by saying "it doesn't matter if the spirit of the OGL was not to let me get stuff for free- the letter of the OGL says I can have it for free." That's my whole point. If someone follows the letter of the law in all instances, great. However, I'm not quite that Lawful- I tend to look at the intent (or spirit) of the law or agreement, and I try to live up to that. So I complain if I get a speeding ticket when I'm driving safely, but I would never consider transcribing a whole book and giving it away just because the OGL says I can. I'm only making a point about the double standard here- not trying to say it's OK to speed and not OK to transcribe UA.

Question: How many people that didn't buy the Manual of the Planes now have access to Planar Rules because WotC themselves uploaded the material?

I imagine lots. However, WotC made the choice to make their work available for free on the Internet, presumably after a suitable waiting period that saw their sales slow. Have you noticed that they don't add stuff to the SRD until it's been out on shelves for a while? UA is probably still selling fairly well. Doesn't WotC deserve a chance to make a little money on it before people give it away for free? I think the idea of a waiting period for free and open distribution of OGC is pretty reasonable, but UA just came out recently.

The term is "crippled"... "Broken" is for bad rules that don't work well with the rest of the rules.

You knew what I meant. Let's not get all pedantic.

Bad for those that have that perception, you mean, as they have obviously established a business model that assumes some degree of control over their OGC that they don't really have. Which returns to the point I've made a dozen times: Make the non-OGC portions of your work viable beyond the reproduction of the OGC-portions, and the product will survive longer, better, and stronger.

What if they make the non-OGC portions of their work more viable by just making less of their work OGC? If publishers are loathe to release OGC because they think it will hurt their sales when it's copied and given away for free, then they'll probably just release less OGC.

That's basically my point. Yes, it's perfectly OK for people to copy UA and post it on the Internet for all to download for free. However, does that hurt WotC? Will it inevitably hurt us, the consumers, as WotC and other publishers choose to release less OGC because of this kind of action? If so, should it be done?

By the same coin, however, they shouldn't complain about an agreement they made while fully aware of the implications ahead of time.

I don't see any publishers complaining about the OGL. Clearly, any that have benefitted from it by releasing D20 stuff would be crazy to complain. What I have seen is publishers asking fans and other publishers to give them a chance to make a bit of money before giving away their work for free. Publishers typically ask each for permission before using each others OGC, even though they certainly don't have to. And, in the few occasions where I've heard of a publisher asking another not to use their OGC, the other publisher has complied with the wishes of the first. It's common courtesy, nothing more, and nothing less.

Even though I doudt 4E won't be Open, here's my prediction in regards to what will happen if such is the case: D&D will stop being the "leader" brand name and fall to the wayside as the d20 System and Open Gaming remain friendly to OGL Publishers and fansites.

You have to remember that we here at EN World are a very small minority. Most D&D players don't give a rip about OGC/OGL. If WotC puts out 4E after a reasonable amount of time and it looks like an improvement, they'll buy it. And because they'll buy it, even if it's not open, I would expect many current D20 publishers to end up entering into licensing agreements with WotC to produce stuff for 4E, and the world would go on, with the OGL gradually fading into obscurity.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

No, you're supposed to stop eating because otherwise, you'll turn into a big, fat slob.

See, it's the same with OGC -- if you use too much open game content you'll turn into a big, fat open game slob. And then none of the cool kids will want to play with you and you'll never get a date and you'll live your life in loneliness and THEN you'll be sorry.

You'll see.

Ugh... You folks are giving me flashbacks of an old Louie Anderson skit...

"You be here four hours! You go now!"

 

[Maggan]

What constitutes "without trying to influence the outcome"? Not making the OGC freely available? Not dissuading others from making it freely available? Not helping others to make it freely available?

In this case I was thinking about mr Collins' post, where he expressed his negative feelings towards the idea of a UA SRD, which then led to posters feeling bad and pontentially made them stop compiling an UA SRD.

So instead of the trial running its course, mr Collins have influenced the trial.

Cheers!

Maggan

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Sure, but the intent was that that redistribution be done by other sources who are using previous OGC in a published work, so that not every company is reinventing the wheel with every product.

Yet aren't we seeing that already? How many forms of "magical location" rules have you seen? How about firearms? How many Mass Combat Systems are currently available?

It's safe to say that it's failed that purpose.

We're getting away from the original complaint here. I'm sure if we asked Andy Collins, he'd say he'd be happy to see UA's OGC in other publishers work. That's clearly in the spirit of the OGL. What is not in the spirit of the OGL is people transcribing whole works so that others can use that work for free.

Mind pointing out where, other than AC's irrelevant opinion, this is stated?

I would not defend a company that does that; making it difficult to tell what is OGC and what is not OGC is not only against the spirit of the OGL, it's against the letter. That's not the point though. Neither that company, nor one that clearly designates OGC, wants their hard work to be given away for free. Some people do- I gather you're going to post your Aedon bestiary for anyone's use, and that's great. However, if a company is in business to make money selling D20 stuff, I can understand them not wanting people to give away their hard work for free. And no need to rehash the fact that they entered into the OGL, blah blah blah. If they perceive that people copying and posting whole books hurts their business, then I'm sure many publishers would consider releasing less OGC, or crippling OGC as best they can. Some wouldn't, sure, but some would, and that's bad for us, the consumers.

Actually, my work is protected just as much as everyone else's: Fictional/artistic elements and group identification remain outside of the OGC unless I declare it otherwise. If a product is put out that has it's only value in the OGC it contains, that is the choice of the publisher to do that. But their choice should not have any influence on what occurs to the material once declared OGC.

Apparently I didn't expand on this enough. Someone who says "but 5 mph over the speed limit is safe and thus within the spirit of the speed limit laws, thus it's unfair to get a ticket" is setting a double standard by saying "it doesn't matter if the spirit of the OGL was not to let me get stuff for free- the letter of the OGL says I can have it for free."

Read Section 1b of the license again: "Public Display" is included within the definition of distribution. Posting something on a website is a "public display".

If anything's against the "spirit" of the OGL, it's trying to pretend certain terms were included on accident and thus using them is exploitive.

In short: Redistributing OGC in the form of a public display (which is the topic here, right?) is not against the law and, I would argue, is part of the "spirit" of the OGL. Driving 5 mph over the speed limit, no matter how safe you think it may be, is still breaking the law. Stop trying to paint these two things with the same brush.

That's my whole point. If someone follows the letter of the law in all instances, great. However, I'm not quite that Lawful- I tend to look at the intent (or spirit) of the law or agreement, and I try to live up to that. So I complain if I get a speeding ticket when I'm driving safely, but I would never consider transcribing a whole book and giving it away just because the OGL says I can. I'm only making a point about the double standard here- not trying to say it's OK to speed and not OK to transcribe UA.

No, you are comparing an illegal act (speeding) to a legal act (re-distribution of Open Game Content) and using a subjective opinion rather than fact to smooth over the fact that the comparison is poorly thought out.

I imagine lots. However, WotC made the choice to make their work available for free on the Internet, presumably after a suitable waiting period that saw their sales slow. Have you noticed that they don't add stuff to the SRD until it's been out on shelves for a while? UA is probably still selling fairly well. Doesn't WotC deserve a chance to make a little money on it before people give it away for free? I think the idea of a waiting period for free and open distribution of OGC is pretty reasonable, but UA just came out recently.

Don't you think WotC thereby has an obligation to state their intended purpose so people can make an informed choice rather than leaving us in a vacuum? The fact that UA has an OGL in it makes UA different from any of their other books. So are they releasing a UA SRD or not? We don't know. Therefore, any decisions we make are in absence of their input.

I would gladly hear such input from Wizards, but that input needs to be from someone speaking as a representative authorized to speak out on the issue.

You knew what I meant. Let's not get all pedantic.

Hey, for someone that likes to back morality theories with subjective ideals, you shouldn't complain if your inability to use correct terminology is pointed out.

What if they make the non-OGC portions of their work more viable by just making less of their work OGC? If publishers are loathe to release OGC because they think it will hurt their sales when it's copied and given away for free, then they'll probably just release less OGC.

Which may or may not be a viable means for them to do so.

That's basically my point. Yes, it's perfectly OK for people to copy UA and post it on the Internet for all to download for free. However, does that hurt WotC? Will it inevitably hurt us, the consumers, as WotC and other publishers choose to release less OGC because of this kind of action? If so, should it be done?

If the material is at all derivitive (and 95% of the rules I've seen released under the OGL are just that), it cannot be released as non-OGC. Therefore, to retain their rules as Closed Content, they will have to be creating rules components that in no way interact, influence, or are influenced by anything already OGC.

I don't see any publishers complaining about the OGL. Clearly, any that have benefitted from it by releasing D20 stuff would be crazy to complain. What I have seen is publishers asking fans and other publishers to give them a chance to make a bit of money before giving away their work for free. Publishers typically ask each for permission before using each others OGC, even though they certainly don't have to. And, in the few occasions where I've heard of a publisher asking another not to use their OGC, the other publisher has complied with the wishes of the first. It's common courtesy, nothing more, and nothing less.

It's unneccessary and muddies the water. For instance, if I'm reproducing material from Necropolis and Necromancer contacts me and asks that I stop, am I going to suddenly get some big, nasty reputation because I don't feel obligated to do so? If Necromancer complains about me, will I get the mud flung at me, or will Necromancer get mud flung at them for trying to get me to stop doing what I'm legally entitled to do?

(Not that I expect this kind of treatment from Necromancer; it was just the first book I saw on my shelf when I was digging for an example.)

To which, what you call "courtesy" is, in my opinion, little more than using subjective ethics to add conditions to OGC re-use which is forbidden per Section 2 of the OGL.

You have to remember that we here at EN World are a very small minority. Most D&D players don't give a rip about OGC/OGL. If WotC puts out 4E after a reasonable amount of time and it looks like an improvement, they'll buy it. And because they'll buy it, even if it's not open, I would expect many current D20 publishers to end up entering into licensing agreements with WotC to produce stuff for 4E, and the world would go on, with the OGL gradually fading into obscurity.

Possibly. Possibly not. Without the conditions of the new licensing being known, we could only speculate. However, I doubt severely that d20 will fade into obscurity. 4E would have to have vastly superior mechanics to even be a threat to Open Gaming.

Of course, one might ask: If ENWorld is a minority, than why would a small group within that minority compiling their personal transcriptions from UA into a single document that big of a deal? Either we're relevant or we're not; and if we're not, why are you wasting your time debating this topic?

 

[Samothdm]

Well, there are definitely a wide variety of opinions here. I do wish that some more publishers would ring in with their opinions on using OGC.

From what I see, there are a bunch of ways that people can use Open Game Content.

1) Non-Publisher. Put OGC on your website or in a handout for your players so they have access to the rules you're going to use. I do this myself. It's perfectly legal under the rules of the OGL. I would say, however, if I were going to be using 50% or more of a single book, I would suggest that my players all try to come up with the money to buy the book themselves. For example, if I were running an Arcana Unearthed Campaign (Monte's book, just to clear up confusion in the title vs. Unearthed Arcana, the WotC book), that book contains all new different classes, races, spells, etc. Going through and posting all of the OGC of that entire book online is legal, but seems pointless. If you're playing AU, make your players buy the book.

2) Publisher. Referencing OGC from one product in your own product. Dynasties and Demagogues by Atlas/Penumbra is an example. The book makes use of "Social Feats" from Fading Suns d20 in the book (as well as some other stuff from other companies). But, the book as a whole is mostly new material. Again, legal according to the OGL.

3) Publisher. Make a "complilation" book along a theme, ala Ultimate Prestige Classes, Ultimate Spells, etc. In this case, a publisher is taking OGC from a bunch of different sources along one single theme to give consumers access to a "best of..." sort of thing. Totally legal according to the OGL.

4) Publisher or Non-Publisher. Taking a single book and posting/publishing/redistributing all of the OGC from that book. Basically, turning one single book that is currently available for sale into a freely available version. An example here is the UA thing we're all talking about. Yes, it's totally legal according to the OGL.

I'm sorry, but I just can't understand how people don't see a difference between those four points.

1) Making *some* material available to players in a campaign in a limited way on a website or as handouts. Yes, it would be preferable to buy the book but if you're only using certain bits in your campaign (a few classes or races or whatever) then I don't see a problem with posting just those bits you're actually using on your site.

2) In the Dynasties & Demagogues example, the intent of the author is not to give away Fading Suns d20's Social Feats for free. The intent is to create a book that uses those feats in a new and different way, in a different setting. It exposes people to a set of rules that they may not have seen before if they weren't interested in the Fading Suns book from a setting standpoint.

3) Compilation books, again, focus on a single theme. I don't believe that Green Ronin's intent is to give away all of the content in Relics & Rituals (or whatever they use as source material for the Complete Grimoire's - I don't have my copy handy here) for free. What they're doing is collecting spells from a bunch of different sources so people can just use the spells without the rest of the book. In this case, if you want the PrCs or Magic Items from Relics & Rituals, you're going to have to buy the book.

4) In the last case, transcribing the entire book does not really seem to serve, at least to me, any purpose other than just that - providing the entire contents of the book for free in one easy-to-access place so people don't have to buy the book. At that point, there's no incentive for people to buy the book.

The Pocket Player's Handbook is not a good example, because WotC already made all of that material readily available in an SRD format. They have not done so with UA.

 

[JohnRTroy]

If anything's against the "spirit" of the OGL, it's trying to pretend certain terms were included on accident and thus using them is exploitive.

It's not pretending--it's called "having a conscience".

It's called considering the effect my actions have on others, regardless of whether it is in the bounds of ethical or legal behavior. I think it is immoral to be an exploitive jerk, and all the debate anybody tells me won't change that thought.

I think there are good uses and bad uses of OGL out there. Each one I judge based on how exploitive it is. To me, If it feels like you are doing something wrong, it probably is wrong. That's how everybody should behave.

To which, what you call "courtesy" is, in my opinion, little more than using subjective ethics to add conditions to OGC re-use which is forbidden per Section 2 of the OGL.

And what is wrong with being more careful, going above and beyond the call of duty or the letter of the law in everything one does in his or her life, or holding one's self up to a more noble ideal. What is wrong with that?

Of course, one might ask: If ENWorld is a minority, than why would a small group within that minority compiling their personal transcriptions from UA into a single document that big of a deal? Either we're relevant or we're not; and if we're not, why are you wasting your time debating this topic?

We are debating for this purpose.

Some of us feel that the creation of an SRD for Unearthed Arcana for free on the Internet violates a trust. We discourage people from doing that, and debate why. And we realize our actions have consequences, and the activities of a few may discourage the good elements of OGL.

And before anybody thinks I am attacking anybody, I am attacking the attitude, not an individual. I have not attacked others, but I see people ready to jump on both myself and Andy Collins for daring to speak out about this, questioning our motives. I can't help it if some of the things we say make people feel guilty about their actions.

 

[nikolai]

Some of us feel that the creation of an SRD for Unearthed Arcana for free on the Internet violates a trust. We discourage people from doing that, and debate why. And we realize our actions have consequences, and the activities of a few may discourage the good elements of OGL.

I can't see how the creation of a Unearthed Arcana SRD violates a trust. As far as I am aware Wizards has knowingly given everyone explicit permission to do just this. Andy Collins has posted against it - but he wasn't speaking for Wizards - his opinions are nothing more than that, and are in some respects factually wrong.

 

[Cergorach]

4) In the last case, transcribing the entire book does not really seem to serve, at least to me, any purpose other than just that - providing the entire contents of the book for free in one easy-to-access place so people don't have to buy the book. At that point, there's no incentive for people to buy the book.

Let me start by pointing out that the incentive to buy the book is primaily to have an actual book in hand to read through. Trust me, even a technophiliac like me still appreciates an actual book in hand. Secondarily is to have some nice illustrations and a nice cover. Third your sponsering creative talent.

An example is Green Ronin's Hammer and Helm, a product from 2002, almost 2 years old. If GR is still making lots of dough off this book then i really need to re-evaluate the D20 industry, but i don't really think that they still sell a lot of these. It features 45 high quality b&w illustrations and a handsome color cover, not to mention a spiffy layout. It's 112 pages long and when you buy it at www.taloncomics.com it only costs $16.95, more than worth it if it where only to get a physical product (and save on printing costs).

Now for the value of transcribing the text verbatim. Making it less dificult for other people to use it in their works and not promoting the reinvention of the wheel. A document that only lists the actual OGC should be a big help to most people that want to use OGC. The OGC copy of a single book might not have much value, but a library of OGC books has the value of being searchable and can be used to find the OGC rules that best fit your style. One book is a start for more to come.

I'm currently working on some OGC verbatim books that contain material that i think adds value to the basic Fantasy D20 game. For now that's all the OGC vrom GR's Book of the Righteous, with some additional material form Legions of Hell, Armies of the Abyss, Unholy Warrior's Handbook, Avatar's Handbook, and the Book of Fiends. Avatar's Handbook will follow first for verbatim OGC, then Legion's of Hell, Armies of the Abyss, and Unholy Warrior's Handbook, and finally after Book of Fiends has been out for six months i'll add the OGC verbatim. With the OGC material between those books i can fill a hole in the current SRD: a good pantheon of gods and a decent plane structure. That's OGC from six awesome books to plug a 'hole'. If people want more of this goodness, like awesome images, 'fluff' text for the monsters, and the rest of the BotR 'bible' they'll have to buy the books. I'll be asking GR if they're interested in providing an advertisemnet page to be included in these works. And i've already seen a couple of gaps in the already available works, like the Avatar and Holy Warrior for v.3.5, write ups for Demogorgon, Orcus, etc., developing Byldgewater and Cacoethes further, delving deeper into the angelic choirs and the fallen angels, some actual churches/locations where people worship the gods of the tree, etc. After this i've got my eyes set on Fantasy Flight's Path of Books. UA just is a whole bunch of goodness that just has no equal among the D20 publishers.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

It's not pretending--it's called "having a conscience".

No, it's "pretending". "Public display" means just that. Do you think that was left in the OGL on accident?

It's called considering the effect my actions have on others, regardless of whether it is in the bounds of ethical or legal behavior. I think it is immoral to be an exploitive jerk, and all the debate anybody tells me won't change that thought.

Actually, you never answered my question about the conditions of your "super module". Mind going back and finding it? Or would you just admit that your "moral stance" is simply that: a stance based on your worldview, which may or may not be correct and most definately won't be universal.

I think there are good uses and bad uses of OGL out there. Each one I judge based on how exploitive it is. To me, If it feels like you are doing something wrong, it probably is wrong. That's how everybody should behave.

And, naturally, if I don't feel it's wrong, I'm an "exploitive jerk" without a conscience?

And what is wrong with being more careful, going above and beyond the call of duty or the letter of the law in everything one does in his or her life, or holding one's self up to a more noble ideal. What is wrong with that?

Because of this line in Section 2 of the OGL:

2. ...No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.

This part of the license protects the OGC re-user from being told "no". Thus, any implied "noble ideal" to contact the original contributor of the material is nothing more than semantics; it's asking the OGC re-user to accept the "term or condition" that the originating source approves when such approval is entirely unneccessary.

I mean, honestly, if I ask, then what stops the original source from saying "no" for what ever reason. Maybe they don't want their material posted? Maybe they don't like the theme of my setting? Maybe they don't like me from my posts? And if I'm told "no", am I legally obligated to accept "no" for an answer or can I reproduce the material anyway? And if I can ignore the "no", why the hell am I asking in the first place? After all, by the terms of the license, the "Contributor" has no right whatsoever to say "no" because they have already "contributed" their work.

We are debating for this purpose.

Some of us feel that the creation of an SRD for Unearthed Arcana for free on the Internet violates a trust. We discourage people from doing that, and debate why. And we realize our actions have consequences, and the activities of a few may discourage the good elements of OGL.

And before anybody thinks I am attacking anybody, I am attacking the attitude, not an individual. I have not attacked others, but I see people ready to jump on both myself and Andy Collins for daring to speak out about this, questioning our motives. I can't help it if some of the things we say make people feel guilty about their actions.

We question terms like "ethical", "moral", and "noble ideal". You are placing your value judgements onto other people. So while you claim to not be attacking them (or me), you really are. You claim you are correct by virtue of your morality, and it is only your subjective morality that gives your stance any validity.

Which is to say, it has none.