Is the Unearthed Arcana SRD online?

[RavenProject]

Hmm, all those "if wotc don't agree with redistributing UA, then they shouldn't make it open content" is quite short sighted. UA couldn't be published otherwise because the majority of the content is either common house ruling or third party OGC. The common house rulings aren't a legal problem but publishing them closed would stir up much anger because it could make other, already published D20 products "illegal" and prohibit future products from using them.

From a legal point of view they have to declare half of the UA material OGC anyway and it would be to much of a hassle to make such a distinctive declaration. I'm quite sure, that WotC made UA OGC because they had no other viable choice.

However, it is a fact, that the UA is OGC and thus the content can be used accordingly to the OGL. This includes redistributing it for "free".

 

[frugal]

I am really not sure how you guys have managed to come up with this many posts discussing what is in effect a non issue . Allow me to explain:

1 - When WoTC released the 3 core rules books, all 3 books were (and still are) completely closed content. This allowed WoTC to be the sole seller of 3E products.

2 - Then after a while WoTC released the SRD for 3E under the OGL, this allowed 3rd party publishers to write derivative rules.

2a - Many different formatted versions appear on web site as html, doc, pdf etc.

3 - Some publishers wanted to write completely closed systems (I believe Spycraft is non-OGL), so they licensed the closed D20 system directly from WoTC

4 - WoTC produced the 3 core 3.5E rule books, again all 3 were completely closed content.

5 - A while after the release of the closed content WoTC released an OGL 3.5 SRD (The timeframe of 2 months springs to mind).

5a - Many different formatted versions appear on web site as html, doc, pdf etc.

6 - WoTC releases Unearthed Arcana as OGL and all hell breaks loose.


Hypothosis: WoTC deliberatly released Unearthed Arcana under the OGL with full knowledge of the consequences.

Evidence: In the past WoTC have released a closed content version first and then 2 months later released an OGL version. If they did not want to have people transcribe and redistribute the product then they would have released it as closed content and then released an open version in a few months time.

If a publisher wants to retain complete control over their product for a fixed period of time before opening it up then they should release the hardcopy as closed content and then release an SRD as open content later on.


Personal Opinion: Personally I would rather see publishers release a closed content book and then after a time allow me to download the open version than release the book as open and then complain when people treat it as open.

 

[RavenProject]

3 - Some publishers wanted to write completely closed systems (I believe Spycraft is non-OGL), so they licensed the closed D20 system directly from WoTC

Why should anyone do that? You can use the OGL and still publish a completly closed product. There are dozen of such systems. Using the OGL does not mean you have to publish your system, that's based on the SRD as OGC as well.

Hypothosis: WoTC deliberatly released Unearthed Arcana under the OGL with full knowledge of the consequences.

Of course they are fully aware of the consequences but like I said, they had no other choice.

 

[kenjib]

Because many D20 based OGL products sell better than for systems that have a smaller user base. That being said, most publishers go well beyond the minimum requirements of OGC, because of they not to cripple their products, and usually by their own statement, it's because they want to allow other companies to reuse their gaming elements without problem. However, very few would claim they do so in order to allow someone to republish their whole work.

So what is the distinction here? Is it that they only want it re-distributed if the re-distributor charges money for it? Is it that it can be a printed book or PDF but not a web site? Is it that they only want a certain percentage of it to be re-distributable by any one publisher and/or publication? Is it that there should be some waiting period before I re-distribute? Is it that they want people to ask permission and approve it on a case by case basis? Is it that they don't want me to to use it if I said something they didn't like at some point in the past? Is it some other restraint that I haven't thought of here? Is it some combination of some or all of these?

Note that in all of these cases, the OGL is altogether meaningless since the publisher expects you to effectively create a new contract with them in order to re-use the content. Why is that OGL even in the book in the first place? Is it so they can get more customers to buy their book with d20 branding while they simultaneously try to avoid their own obligations in the agreement? That's what it's starting to sound like to me and to be honest I'm losing a bit of respect for the publishers/authors mentioned so far that are trying to guilt people into not licensing their material.

Ambiguity breeds disagreement. This whole situation is just setting people up to disagree with one another.

Trying to modify the license so that people could reuse the work in some capacities but not others, given the existing OGL license which must also be valid is a legal nightmare.

This is a good point regarding making the change now, but it wouldn't be a legal nightmare if they waited for 4e to make the change. The business model is working fine for now and D&D sales continue to do very well, so they could easily wait until then if the current OGL bothers them.

So rather than do that, they publish very open works, and hope people won't abuse their intended use.

What intended use are you talking about? Some vague notion from the publisher that is completely at odds with the license printed in the book and not stated anywhere for a licensee to understand, or perhaps posted two years back on a company messageboard? How am I, as a licensee, expected to understand which of the numerous restrictions I mentioned previously may or may not apply?

I shouldn't have to contact the publisher to find out what additional random restrictions he wants from me to redistribute under the OGL. This renders the OGL completely meaningless since I am effectively back to the old days of negotiating a license directly with the publisher. What's the point of the OGL again? I would much rather publishers declare their open content honestly and let me use it as per the terms of the license without any unknowable hidden strings attached.

Ambiguity breeds disagreement. This whole situation is just setting people up to disagree with one another.

A legal document doesn't have a spirit, but there is a spirit in which they choose how much work to make OGC. They're giving back to the community, both of fans, and publishers. I somehow doubt declaring an entire product to be OGC is a 'business model',

Well if they aren't using the license according to a business model, then they shouldn't be surprised if their use of the OGL doesn't serve their business well, should they?

In case you are talking about WotC here, the OGL was clearly a business model from the start and in fact was a solution created to address the problems that TSR had during 2nd edition with fragmented product lines and low-print-run and unprofitable support material. It has been a very successful solution in fact. If WotC did not expect to see business benefit in the rules from Unearthed Arcana trickling out to other producers of material then you can be assured that they would not have released it under the OGL - just like they haven't with most of their books. Unlike other companies they don't have to use the OGL to produce d20 compatible books.

 

[barsoomcore]

Very few (publishers) would claim they (publish OGC) in order to allow someone to republish their whole work.

Let me quote a publisher on this very subject -- Green Ronin, from their excellent Skull & Bones campaign book:

In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use the Open Game Content.

"Use" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content.

"Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute.

This is printed on page 3 of the book.

In the absence of any other information from the publisher, it is crystal clear that they are claiming to allow me to do whatever the heck I want to do with this content, provided I abide by the terms of the license.

By using the license, they free me from the burden of having to figure out what they claim to allow me to do. Of course they would prefer that I not simply republish the content as a competing product. And I'm not going to. But they are saying that it's okay for me to do so, if I want to.

 

[kenjib]

Of course they are fully aware of the consequences but like I said, they had no other choice.

The other choice would have been to not use OGC from other publishers in the book. If they want to use the license, they shouldn't try to exploit the parts they like and wiggle out of the parts they don't like.

 

[barsoomcore]

I'm quite sure, that WotC made UA OGC because they had no other viable choice.

Okay, so if UA is OGC because some non-trivial percent of its content was ALREADY OGC, then this debate just got even more absurd.

If the content is already OGC, then WotC is doing exactly what people are saying is so terrible for the industry -- Hoovering up OGC and spitting it back out onto the market without adding any value to it.

Where are the publishers who originally created this content? Why aren't they boo-hooing over how unethical WotC is to not understand that they didn't MEAN IT when they printed the OGL in their products?

I could have put this content up on my website BEFORE the book came out, so how come doing it AFTER the book comes out is suddenly a "sleazy" thing to do? Stuff and nonsense.

 

[barsoomcore]

What did I miss and will http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17294]this make you feel better?[/font]

Nothing more exciting than a double post, and yes, thank you. It does.

 

[barsoomcore]

Considering the tone of my last couple of posts, let me make something clear:

I don't think there was anything wrong in WotC's use of OGC in Unearthed Arcana. I don't think anyone at WotC has said anything to indicate that they're trying to "wiggle out" of anything. I don't in fact, think any d20 publisher at all has tried to wiggle out of the OGL or abused the OGL in any way, or called anybody names.

This is an extraordinarily friendly industry, in my experience. I like everyone I've met who's involved in it.

I may be getting a little frustrated at all this, I admit. For me, the separation of legal from personal is very straightforward and very necessary for things to operate smoothly. Not everyone sees things that way, I know. I apologize if I've gotten heated.

 

[Cergorach]

Why should anyone do that? You can use the OGL and still publish a completly closed product. There are dozen of such systems. Using the OGL does not mean you have to publish your system, that's based on the SRD as OGC as well.

Please reread the License again, material derived of the SRD or OGC is by devinition OGC as well.

Spycraft for example is also OGC, except for a few licensed parts from StarWars. Only WotC and people WotC gives permission to can produce material based on D&D like rules that aren't OGC from a different company.

Of course they are fully aware of the consequences but like I said, they had no other choice.

WotC did have a choice, they could have made a seperate agreement with the OGC contributors featured, this could be done if all parties involved agreed. They didn't probably to much of an hassle.

Also, once material is designated as OGC it can't be undesignated. (read the OGL FAQ)