Is the Unearthed Arcana SRD online?

[Cergorach]

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.

Shouldn't people who smoke feel like they are doing something wrong? Smoking is hazourdous for your health and those who don't have a choice about the air they're breathing beside you, still people smoke.

Shouldn't people who drink more than they can handle (that means tipsy and drunk) feel like they are doing something wrong? Less controle over one's emotions and motor control, posibly resulting in violence, accident, or unsuppresed oppionions.

Should't people who do drugs feel like they are doing something wrong? Less controle over one's emotions and motor control, posibly resulting in violence, accident, or unsuppresed oppionions. Not to mention the addictive effects that can result in high crimes.

I don't do any, or have ever done, any of the thing i just mentioned above, but how many people can actually say the same? Do i start calling these people immorale biggots just because they don't have the same values and/or restraint as myself? I sure would like it a lot if people stopped doing the things i just mentioned, but i don't really expect them to, mostly because these things are legal (some soft drugs are around here). I also remind myself that not everyone is like me, and i'm bloody happy people aren't like me ;-)

 

[Setanta]

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?

Sure, we keep seeing publishers reinvent the wheel, but that's not relevant to the discussion at hand. It doesn't change the fact that that is what the OGL was originally intended to do.

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

How is Andy Collins' opinion irrelevant? If I was a publisher, I'd stay quiet on this too, because of the way Andy has been villified in this thread for having the audacity to actually want his company to make money on his work. It's strange how that keeps him employed.

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.

As for the first part, I understand the OGL. As for the second, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. That's been discussed quite a bit on this thread. Yes, once something is OGC, people have a right to reproduce it. Nobody is contesting that. The question is not whether they *have* a right, but whether it *is* right. It's a courtesy thing, not a legal thing.

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".

You really can step away from the OGL lecturn.

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.

Who's pretending that?

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.

Nobody is suggesting redistributing OGL on a website is against the law. The crux of the discussion here seems to be whether giving away RPG stuff for free or not is in the spirit of the OGL. You think it is, I don't. It's too bad we can't get publishers to weigh in. As I mentioned above, it seems someone making a point like Andy's just gets the publisher in question villified, so why would they say anything? I have noticed the distinct lack of publishers stepping into this thread and saying they would be happy about people disseminating their work for free immediately after it's published. As I recall, we've got two comments from publishers. Andy's is one, and the other said he appreciates groups like the d20exchange observing a waiting period before reproducing his work on a website for free distrution.

As for the speeding analogy, again, nobody is saying that copying UA to a website is against the law. The analogy was originally used to illustrate the difference between believing in the spirit of the law/agreement versus believing in the letter of the law/agreement. The analogy is not to say that posting UA on a website is the same thing as going 5 mph over the speed limit. Someone who stays at a particular speed because it's the speed limit is following the letter, while someone who drives a safe speed without regard for the posted limit is following the spirit of the law. Someone who posts UA on a website is following the letter of the OGL, but in my opinion (and I'm well aware your opinion is different), they are not following the spirit of the OGL.

Let's try another, since the first one worked so well (or not!). Let's say you put closed content Aedon stuff on your website (I haven't looked- maybe you already have). Let's say I like it, and contact you to use some of it. You say sure, and we arrive at an agreement whereby I can use something (say, a culture) from Aedon in my future publications. Now, the letter of that agreement says I can use that culture in a series of novels I write, but we really arrived at the agreement within the context of gaming publications. I know that, so I would ask you whether it was OK to use the culture before writing a novel including it, even though the letter of the agreement expressly allows me to do so. I would do that our of courtesy. Do you see my point?

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.

It's not a poor analogy. It's a way of looking at things. I believe in following the spirit of a law or agreement, even if that's different from the letter. In this case, it means I would not post UA to a website, allow that's clearly legal. Obviously I'm not the only one who sees this as a fine analogy, since I wasn't the original person to post it. If you don't see it as a fine analogy, then let's stop talking about it, OK?

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?

In the most obvious sense, their intended purpose is clear- there is a price tag on the book, and they've been selling it to distributors, presumably expecting the distributors to sell it to retailers, etc. As for making it OGL, I'm sure they'd like to see publishers re-use some of the rules and ideas in that book, and expand upon them to see which ones are popular. The popular ones will probably be considered for inclusion in 4E someday. I don't think they have any obligation to state that, though.

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.

I don't have subjective ideals at all, and frankly I find it insulting that you would suggest that. Maybe you mean something different than what I think of when I read "subjective values." If I said someone had subjective values, I would be saying that I think they apply their values depending on the situation in such a way that their values never really stop them from doing what they want to do. If you mean something different, please explain yourself.

Also, it wasn't inability to use correct terminology. Have you never in your life typed a word that wasn't exactly the right word? You understood what I meant; we communicated fine on that point. There was no reason to point out that I used the wrong word.

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.

How is WotC able to release anything as closed content then? As I'm sure you know, WotC isn't actually publishing under the OGL. Other publishers need to make rules material OGC, sure, but your comment above was in response to my belief that widespread free distribution of WotC's OGC in the form of UA could lead to them making 4E closed content, which goes back to the original point of this whole discussion- transcribing and posting UA is bad for us, the gamers.

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?

Actually, from what I've seen, the companies that don't follow these unwritten rules are the ones that take a reputation hit. There's really no reason not to be courteous here. I haven't heard of too many cases of one publisher stating that they'd prefer another publisher not re-use their OGC, so why not ask?

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.

We are just speculating without knowing the license or the new edition's rules, of course, but wouldn't you agree that it would be bad for us gamers if WotC makes 4E closed? Based on what we've seen of their management, and knowing that there are many opponents of open gaming at WotC, can't you see it as possible that giving away their work for free in the form of UA might lead to 4E being closed?

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?

I don't believe that people transcribing UA and posting it on the web will hurt WotC's sales of said book enough to matter. That isn't important though. Will WotC's management *think* it hurts their sales? Will this be ammunition for the anti-OGL people at WotC to push their agenda with regards to future WotC publications and/or 4E?

 

[barsoomcore]

To me, If it feels like you are doing something wrong, it probably is wrong. That's how everybody should behave.

That IS how everybody behaves. The problem, throughout history, has always been that everybody doesn't agree on what feels like doing something wrong.

This is why we have laws. So that Fred can't force George to adhere to Fred's standards of what is right or wrong -- standards that George has no way of knowing about, has no way of being alerting to changes in, and has no way to predict in what manner will change in the future. A legal agreement allows both parties to understand what is expected of them, what is denied them, and how they can go about changing any conditions they later decide they don't like.

Like, say, using the OGL. If you enter into an agreement, why would you expect or demand other people NOT to adhere to the terms of that agreement?

If a publisher says, "Please don't publish this online for a few months", people are free to agree or ignore and you may think they are evil or good, but that is an entirely separate issue from the act of releasing something under the OGL. By default, by explicit statement, by reasoned intent, the OGL is meant to make it possible for anyone to distribute content released under its purview in any manner they choose.

If a publisher releases a product using the OGL and doesn't say anything to the contrary, then the only safe assumption is that they expect and accept and possibly even hope that their content will be redistributed in any fashion the license allows.

Now if they DO say, "Please don't," that may be a different story. But in the absence of such a statement, the only reasonable assumption is that they are using the OGL in full knowledge and acceptance of its terms and conditions. This is what frees us from having to agree on what is right or wrong -- the law tells us, so individual feelings don't enter into it.

 

[Nellisir]

(On WotC "setting the bar", and yes, I'm wandering off topic...)

Well, part of it could be your perspective. From my perspective, i'm continually appalled by the fact that WotC *doesn't* set the bar for creativity, ingenuity, editing, or artwork in the D20 System market. IMHO, of course. They are, IMHO, firmly leading the middle of the pack. Only place they are consistently leading is where raw economies of scale help them: production values. And while no one has done a book like Unearthed Arcana, perhaps as little as 1/3rd of it is really innovative--the rest has appeared (more or less) in other D20 System products already, or is old hat to RPGs in general and only new to D20 System.

Well, I don't buy everything anymore, so my perspective is biased in that area. What I don't see, however, are companies as consistently and broadly bending the "rules" of d20 as WotC.

What's the definative book on dragons? Draconomicon. Monsters? Savage Species.
Good? Exalted Deeds (though Good from AEG is pretty, well, good...).
Evil? Vile Darkness.
Alternate rules for your fantasy d20 game? Unearthed Arcana.
Asian-themed role-playing? Oriental Adventures.

It actually annoys me. Testament is cool, but not that useful in a standard game. Ditto Skull & Bones. Maybe not all, but most publishers seem to be locked into some kind of tight-focus vision, where instead of a toolkit book on Renaissance-era roleplaying, with material on fitting in gnomes and orcs and sorcerers, they publish the Qualharian Renaissance Booke, set in 1603 AQ, with dicherion and mrul races, and no guns. 'Cause Qualharia doesn't have guns. They have lightning-throwers.

ARGH!

Before I get lynched, I like campaign books. And I'm sure dicherions are really cool. But for frells sake, I'd like to see a few more publishers explore a few more campaign options via "toolkit" books, not campaign books.

Cheers
Nell.
Wandering off into total incoherency.

 

[barsoomcore]

Nobody is suggesting redistributing OGL on a website is against the law. The crux of the discussion here seems to be whether giving away RPG stuff for free or not is in the spirit of the OGL.

Explain to me how redistributing OGC (I assume that's what you meant) on a website is different from giving away RPG stuff for free.

It's too bad we can't get publishers to weigh in. As I mentioned above, it seems someone making a point like Andy's just gets the publisher in question villified, so why would they say anything?

Who has "villified" any publisher on this thread? I certainly called into question Andy's opinion that redistributing OGC is "petty", but by no means did I intend to attack Andy himself. If I came across in that fashion, I apologize.

There's been plenty of people who disagree with Andy's position, but I don't see how that is "villifying" him. All the disagreements I've read have been very clear legal arguments, devoid of name-calling or emotionally-loaded terminology. nikolai's initial posts of disagreement seemed a little heated, but he/she specifically posted later saying that no slur against Andy was at all intended. So I would be surprised if he came into this discussion and said he felt villified.

Misunderstood, on his own against the forces of Open Gaming run amok, maybe, but villified? Well, maybe.

I believe in following the spirit of a law or agreement, even if that's different from the letter.

So you think it's okay to break the law if in your opinion, the law doesn't mean what it says. That's interesting. Try that in court in some time, let me know how you do.

Wouldn't you agree that it would be bad for us gamers if WotC makes 4E closed?

Describe one bad consequence of this. I can't see how it would be bad at all. Bad for WotC, maybe, but who else? Maybe people who want 4e to enjoy the same broad user base and support that 3e enjoys, I guess.

I mean, game systems aren't like software. They don't go out of date, they don't become obsolete. 3e will always be as good and as useful as it is right now. What hurts games over time is the drop in support materials. The OGL helps to ensure that the support network for games released under it cannot be degraded by any company ceasing to use it. If WotC releases 4e without using the OGL, it will become a competing system to 3e, and I would think they'd have to spend a very large amount of money to compete successfully with a system that is so easy to support. I find it difficult to imagine that a small industry like RPG paper-and-pen publishing could justify such a risky and expensive campaign.

I still haven't seen any of the supporters of the "non-sleazy" interpretation come up with a "non-sleazy" way to handle Bendris Noulg's super-module problem. Anyone?

Those still opposing the idea of using the OGL as it is written seem to have a few arguments:

If somebody asks you to do something (like, "Don't redistribute this book"), it's nice if you can do it.
-- I agree. And if someone asks, I will make an effort. WotC has not asked anyone not to redistribute UA. Until they do, the idea that anyone ought to refrain from redistributing it is pure speculation. By using the OGL to release it, they have explicitly told people that it's okay for them to redistribute it. That's what the OGL says, so presumably that's what WotC is saying.

If OGC gets redistributed, book sales in the industry will fall
-- I haven't seen any data to support this, but Joe B did chime in and say that he felt mad redistribution of his books would hurt his sales.

If sales in the industry fall due to OGC redistribution, D&D 4e will be closed
-- Nobody has demonstrated a bad consequence to this speculation, so I don't consider it an issue.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Sure, we keep seeing publishers reinvent the wheel, but that's not relevant to the discussion at hand. It doesn't change the fact that that is what the OGL was originally intended to do.

No, it's one of the things the OGL was originally intended to do.

How is Andy Collins' opinion irrelevant? If I was a publisher, I'd stay quiet on this too, because of the way Andy has been villified in this thread for having the audacity to actually want his company to make money on his work. It's strange how that keeps him employed.

You may want to go back the the beginning of this thread and take some notes; for instance, dispite my personal disliking of AC as a game designer, I've never villified him in this thread. At most, I indicated that his opinion is not an official statement by way of WotC.

And, yes, I do feel his opinion is irrelevant. That his "voice" holds weight to anyone comes from the misconception that Open Gaming is a publsiher-only playground, which is patently false. Sure, anyone is free to try to make a buck or two through the OGL, but in the end, the OGL does not owe them a living wage. Only the quality of their material, from design to editing, layout and graphics, will deliver that.

WotC has proven this with the SRD and the Core Rulebooks.

As for the first part, I understand the OGL.

That's a good thing...

As for the second, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. That's been discussed quite a bit on this thread. Yes, once something is OGC, people have a right to reproduce it. Nobody is contesting that. The question is not whether they *have* a right, but whether it *is* right. It's a courtesy thing, not a legal thing.

And I'm saying that the concept of courtesy is widely varied. Is it *right* to release something as OGC and then complain when it actually gets treated like OGC?

You really can step away from the OGL lecturn.

No, you must deal with the fact that it is the OGL, not myself or anyone else, that is against your stance. 1b is a clear example of it. (Which, of course, would be why you and JohnRTroy never seem to want to discuss matters of the OGL itself but rather voice forth some unwritten morality play that has nothing to do with the facts of the matter.)

Who's pretending that?

Oh, then you accept the fact that "Public Display" includes web pages?

Nobody is suggesting redistributing OGL on a website is against the law. The crux of the discussion here seems to be whether giving away RPG stuff for free or not is in the spirit of the OGL.

Giving away RPG stuff for free? Certainly not. The OGL does not allow that.

It does, however, permit the open and free exchange of Open Gaming Content.

It's too bad we can't get publishers to weigh in. As I mentioned above, it seems someone making a point like Andy's just gets the publisher in question villified, so why would they say anything?

Note the tone of Andy's post. Then click the link to the GR boards and read the tone of Chris Pramas' post. Then give yourself 5 minutes to consider not why Andy's been villified (by individuals other than myself) but why Chris hasn't been?

I have noticed the distinct lack of publishers stepping into this thread and saying they would be happy about people disseminating their work for free immediately after it's published. As I recall, we've got two comments from publishers. Andy's is one, and the other said he appreciates groups like the d20exchange observing a waiting period before reproducing his work on a website for free distrution.

Which is a good thing. However, if I'm transcribing Insanity, Taint, Legendary Weapons, and Honor (all of which, btw, I already had via other sources so I didn't need to buy UA for them, yet I bought it anyway) and someone says, "I'd like to see an Unearthed Arcana SRD, who's in?", I'm going to volunteer the components I'm already determined to transcribe.

Plain and simple as that.

As for the speeding analogy, again, nobody is saying that copying UA to a website is against the law. The analogy was originally used to illustrate the difference between believing in the spirit of the law/agreement versus believing in the letter of the law/agreement. The analogy is not to say that posting UA on a website is the same thing as going 5 mph over the speed limit. Someone who stays at a particular speed because it's the speed limit is following the letter, while someone who drives a safe speed without regard for the posted limit is following the spirit of the law. Someone who posts UA on a website is following the letter of the OGL, but in my opinion (and I'm well aware your opinion is different), they are not following the spirit of the OGL.

And you anology is flawed because the person driving 5 mph over the speed limit is breaking the law; spirit of not, the person's getting a ticket. Give the Judge the "spirit of the law" speech, if you want, but I don't think it will get you anywhere.

Well, other than perhaps Contempt charges...

Let's try another, since the first one worked so well (or not!). Let's say you put closed content Aedon stuff on your website (I haven't looked- maybe you already have). Let's say I like it, and contact you to use some of it. You say sure, and we arrive at an agreement whereby I can use something (say, a culture) from Aedon in my future publications. Now, the letter of that agreement says I can use that culture in a series of novels I write, but we really arrived at the agreement within the context of gaming publications. I know that, so I would ask you whether it was OK to use the culture before writing a novel including it, even though the letter of the agreement expressly allows me to do so. I would do that our of courtesy. Do you see my point?

No, because I would have been a fool to agree to a contract that was not air-tight or I didn't agree to (which, consequently, would limit you to RPG material). And like I pointed out far earlier in this thread: Every publisher knows that material they release as OGC can easily end up on a website the very next day. They accept that possibility by accepting the license.

It's not a poor analogy. It's a way of looking at things. I believe in following the spirit of a law or agreement, even if that's different from the letter. In this case, it means I would not post UA to a website, allow that's clearly legal. Obviously I'm not the only one who sees this as a fine analogy, since I wasn't the original person to post it. If you don't see it as a fine analogy, then let's stop talking about it, OK?

Sure, as long as it's understood that distributing OGC != breaking the law.

In the most obvious sense, their intended purpose is clear- there is a price tag on the book, and they've been selling it to distributors, presumably expecting the distributors to sell it to retailers, etc. As for making it OGL, I'm sure they'd like to see publishers re-use some of the rules and ideas in that book, and expand upon them to see which ones are popular. The popular ones will probably be considered for inclusion in 4E someday. I don't think they have any obligation to state that, though.

Agreed, but rather besides the point. However, it is interesting to note that the PH, DMG, MM, MotP, and ELH all have price tags, too.

I don't have subjective ideals at all, and frankly I find it insulting that you would suggest that. Maybe you mean something different than what I think of when I read "subjective values." If I said someone had subjective values, I would be saying that I think they apply their values depending on the situation in such a way that their values never really stop them from doing what they want to do. If you mean something different, please explain yourself.

No, what I mean is that values, ethics, and morality are subjective from the point of the individual. What you feel is morally right may not be the same as what I view as morally right. That is why this debate is at a deadlock: Your stance is based entirely on your own personal views of the matter, which are obviously opposed by different personal views.

But then again, the OGL doesn't support your views, it supports mine.

Also, it wasn't inability to use correct terminology. Have you never in your life typed a word that wasn't exactly the right word? You understood what I meant; we communicated fine on that point. There was no reason to point out that I used the wrong word.

And I was being facecious. Your point?

How is WotC able to release anything as closed content then? As I'm sure you know, WotC isn't actually publishing under the OGL. Other publishers need to make rules material OGC, sure, but your comment above was in response to my belief that widespread free distribution of WotC's OGC in the form of UA could lead to them making 4E closed content, which goes back to the original point of this whole discussion- transcribing and posting UA is bad for us, the gamers.

To which I still don't think it is. I don't think 4E will be closed content, and if it is, it will be a mistake on WotC's part.

Actually, from what I've seen, the companies that don't follow these unwritten rules are the ones that take a reputation hit.

I've yet to read of one publisher complaining about another publisher's re-use of their material. Which, considering that complaining about such re-use would definately be against the "spirit" of the OGL, I doubt it will ever happen.

There's really no reason not to be courteous here. I haven't heard of too many cases of one publisher stating that they'd prefer another publisher not re-use their OGC, so why not ask?

Because the Contributor has no right under the OGL to say no and I see no reason to relinquish my right to use OGC because some publisher's having a bad hair day and doesn't feel like saying yes.

We are just speculating without knowing the license or the new edition's rules, of course, but wouldn't you agree that it would be bad for us gamers if WotC makes 4E closed?

No. In fact, it wouldn't be bad for us if WotC rolled over and died. Another purpose of the OGL was to allow the game to continue on even if D&D vanished, as nearly happened when TSR tanked. The future of D&D was uncertain. Whether or not 3E would be a success was uncertain. So, while WotC retains control of the "brand name", the game itself is no longer subject to their fate or choices.

Based on what we've seen of their management, and knowing that there are many opponents of open gaming at WotC, can't you see it as possible that giving away their work for free in the form of UA might lead to 4E being closed?

Possible? Yes. But considering the fact that so many opponents to the OGL are in WotC already, who's to say it wasn't already a possibility?

I don't believe that people transcribing UA and posting it on the web will hurt WotC's sales of said book enough to matter. That isn't important though. Will WotC's management *think* it hurts their sales? Will this be ammunition for the anti-OGL people at WotC to push their agenda with regards to future WotC publications and/or 4E?

Don't care. If management will allow their personal views of the OGL cloud their perception of the facts, than WotC gets exactly what they deserve for hiring people that are against the primary driving force behind a product's marketing model.

 

[barsoomcore]

Explain to me how redistributing OGC (I assume that's what you meant) on a website is different from giving away RPG stuff for free.

Giving away RPG stuff for free? Certainly not. The OGL does not allow that.

It does, however, permit the open and free exchange of Open Gaming Content.

Okay. Well explained. Serves me right for typing too fast.

 

[Setanta]

@barsoomcore

Explain to me how redistributing OGC (I assume that's what you meant) on a website is different from giving away RPG stuff for free.

It's not.

Who has "villified" any publisher on this thread? I certainly called into question Andy's opinion that redistributing OGC is "petty", but by no means did I intend to attack Andy himself. If I came across in that fashion, I apologize.

I was thinking of Nikolai when I used the term villified. I must have missed his later post where he said it wasn't personal. However, he had quite a bit to say about Andy. If you want examples, checkout his posts on page 5, toward the top. Bendris also had some stuff to say about Andy's opinion putting him in a bad light- not quite villifaction, so maybe the word was too strong, but Andy did catch some flak.

So you think it's okay to break the law if in your opinion, the law doesn't mean what it says. That's interesting. Try that in court in some time, let me know how you do.

Oh I know it won't stand up in court. I just don't feel any moral compunction to follow the letter of a law where it doesn't agree with the spirit of the law, or where the law is unjust. In the case of speeding, the spirit of the law is clearly to keep everyone safe on the roads, so while I feel morally obligated to drive a safe speed, I don't feel morally obligated to stay under the speed limit. Oh, and BTW, people have gone before a judge and gotten off on speeding violations because it was broad daylight with light traffic, and they were only speeding "a little" at least here in California.

Describe one bad consequence of this. I can't see how it would be bad at all. Bad for WotC, maybe, but who else? Maybe people who want 4e to enjoy the same broad user base and support that 3e enjoys, I guess.

Well, right now I use rules from WotC and many third party publishers, because they were all written for the same game. Choice is good. If WotC makes 4E closed, then they'll be writing rules for one game, and everyone else will be writing rules for another game (OGL D20 or another system), which will either reduce the choices available to me or increase my work as I would need to convert stuff.

I still haven't seen any of the supporters of the "non-sleazy" interpretation come up with a "non-sleazy" way to handle Bendris Noulg's super-module problem. Anyone?

Perhaps I'm off, but this is his idea of taking something like the environemental subraces in UA, like aquatic halflings, and expanding it to include more subraces, like volcanic halflings or something, right? That's perfectly fine. That kind of thing is the intent of the OGL. I don't think anybody here is saying that people shouldn't do that sort of thing. What some of us are saying is that people shouldn't just transcribe 100% of the text so that others don't have to pay for it. That's all.

If OGC gets redistributed, book sales in the industry will fall

I don't actually believe that it would hurt sales signicantly, unless it was done very quickly and efficiently after the product's release, and even then, I still doubt it would be significant. I'm more concerned about publishers perceiving that it would hurt their sales, and thus releasing less OGC. From Joe B's post, he for one seems to think that this sort of behaviour has the potential to hurt his sales. I'm concerned about that perception.

 

[barsoomcore]

Choice is good. If WotC makes 4E closed, then they'll be writing rules for one game, and everyone else will be writing rules for another game (OGL D20 or another system), which will either reduce the choices available to me or increase my work as I would need to convert stuff.

How will your choices be reduced, exactly? Nobody's going to take away the existing material, so your choices will remain at the very least exactly what they are today. And given that there's no reason to think existing publishers won't continue to expand their existing lines, your choice will actually increase.

Now, if you want to play the imaginary "Closed 4E", then yes, your choices will be limited. But your 3E choices will remain every bit as broad as they are today.

Perhaps I'm off, but this is his idea of taking something like the environemental subraces in UA, like aquatic halflings, and expanding it to include more subraces, like volcanic halflings or something, right?

Nope. Here's the scenario:

I take Skull and Bones and create a supermodule that references those rules, and thus encourages those to purchase a GR product.

Proposed as an "ethical" thing. Rebutted by Bendris Noulg as follows:

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

1. Redistribute the (S&B) 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. Barring #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?

I take it from your previous comments that you would not have a problem with #1 -- you actually haven't been saying that the OGL is supposed to increase the sales of those who use it, as far as I know. So if #1 looks okey-dokey to you, end of story.

This has all come down to a question of which is the better way to judge other people's actions: with morality or legality. And the truth is that a free society can only be built by using legality. A legal code is in fact a moral document, just one that's been dispossessed from any particular person's expression. This is important because what we need is a code of behaviour we can all agree to respect. If we don't have an externally defined code that everyone can consult on demand and understand as they need to, then we can't expect people to know what the standards of behaviour are. Expecting people to know what YOU consider moral, and asking them to adhere to some code that isn't defined anywhere, is futile. A community can't operate that way -- which is why the OGL is a big deal.

The OGL, as a legal document, takes the whole question of "What is right" out of the arena of discussion. Or rather, it lays out very clearly (well, reasonably clearly) "What is right", and people who make use of it do so on the understanding that they are agreeing with the license's definition of "right". If they didn't agree with it, they wouldn't use it.

To say that a publisher ought to receive consideration above and beyond what the license spells out is to assume a great deal on the part of the publisher. You're assuming that when a publisher uses the OGL, they're saying, "Here's some Open Content, but please don't use it in some particular way, even though that way is clearly stated as being okay according to the license I released it under." How do you know that's what the publisher wants?

Now perhaps the publisher has issued a statement saying exactly that. Fair enough. Now we know. But in the absence of such a statement, how do we determine the publisher's desires?

Well, it seems obvious to me that we look at what statements they have made about their release. And the OGL is such a statement. And what it says is pretty clear and has been quoted enough in this thread that I'm really wondering why people aren't getting this. Releasing product using the OGL is a statement, and one of the things that statement communicates is, "Here are the rules regarding the use of this content."

How is it possible that somebody who reads that statement, understands it and acts in accordance with it is behaving unethically? No explanation has been offered for this notion other than:

1. I think it's mean.
2. It will hurt the industry.

The former depends on an assumption about the publisher's desires that, in the absence of evidence for any particular release, is unsupportable. The latter is unsupported by any evidence so far submitted.

 

[jeffh]

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.



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?

And there you go again. Even though I ahve already challenged you on this once, you keep with the circular arguments - you have yet to make any serious attempt to explain why you feel these actions are unethical. (Actually you seemed to have backed off from that for a while there, but now here you're saying it again.) That is precisely what people are questioning. What, specifically, is unethical here? You seem to think the answer is obvious to all, but plainly it isn't. We're not arguing with you because we want to get away with doing things we think are wrong, we're arguing with you because there's no obvious reason to think they are wrong.

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.

Again, specifics please. What trust is being violated? If anyone is violating a trust, it's those publishers (which may or may not include WotC, and do to some extent appear to include at least one otherwise excellent "name" publisher) who release material under the OGL and then try to stop people from excercising the rights the OGL gives them.

All of these products say, straight out, in black and white, that you can use their open content pretty much however you please with only minimal strings attached. I would be pretty upset at any publisher who did that and then tried to stop me from taking them at their word, and downright furious at one that tried to convince me that the OGL doesn't say what it obviously says.

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.

You may not be attacking anyone, but that last sentence, besides being factually wrong, is pretty damn condescending. Nobody is questioning your motives and for someone accusing others of doing so you're sure doing a lot of it yourself. Instead of repeating the same stand over and over (and in ways that, whether you realize it or not, do in fact border on the insulting), why don't you try backing up your claims with solid reasons, as most others have been trying to do?