Is the Unearthed Arcana SRD online?

[Bendris Noulg]

It's a simple request with a yes/no answer. Once given, no negotiation takes place. In comparison, if there were no license, there legal team would have to look over my request, carefully draft a document, and if no money were to be made. probably wouldn't happen.

Ah, but you see, there is a license, and by the terms of that license, they have already said "yes" by the very act of using it.

No one has yet given a single valid reason why I, using the license as it was written, should have to ignore their original "yes" and provide them with a pointless opportunity to say "no" for whatever reason they feal like other than "it's polite". However, the only way it could be impolite is if permission wasn't already given, which it was when the license was used. Anyone that intends to say "no" shouldn't be using the license because the license doesn't allow "no" as an answer.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I know many of you are "gung-ho" (I apologize if it sounds aggressive) about doing such an UA SRD and distribute it, but why is it just WotC's products? What about a Field of Blood SRD, or a Spycraft SRD?

The only people that are "gung-ho" are the folks with OCR capability, and they don't seem to be sharing.

Myself, I'm gung-ho for doing the parts I'm using, of which I'd gladly contribute those parts to anyone compiling an SRD or, for that matter, wants the material for their own works. As is, though, no one indicated that they wanted Sanity, so while I transcribed it verbatum (minus PI-references to CoC), it's now been edited and chopped-up for Aedon, making it unusuable to anyone not wanting to use my changes (a thing I'll just label as "unlikely").

However, I will be doing Taint during the next week or two. Anyone interested can email me for the transcription.

I mean, if you're gonna do one, you might as well do all.

As above, I only transcribe what I actually use. For instance, I transcribed two monsters from Midnight (Astarix and Fell) for my own use, but I sent them on to the Midnight SRD team before making my own changes (scratch that... I sent the Astarix in, I'm not done doing the Fell). I've done a few dozen spells from R&R and R&R2 (S&SS), School of Illusion (Fantasy Flight), Magic (AGE) and a few other sources. After decripling what needed decripling, but before making any changes for my own RPG, I submitted them to d20Exchange. There are a few adventures (mostly AEG's and FFG's "pamphlet adventures") that I've "SRD'd" when you consider that fact that they tend to have one or two monsters or a magic item in them.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Who thinks he's far cleverer late at night than he really is.

Yeah, but you made me chuckle anways...

 

[jeffh]

* At least one major 3rd-party book is being turned into an "SRD" by readers, with the blessings of the publisher, no less. (I can't immediately recall which, but it is linked to in this thread.)

It's Midnight.

 

[kenjib]

No, the whole point is that I don't need to ask for permission, not that I shouldn't. Just like I don't need to hold the door open for people. but I'm able to do that too. Moreover, it is nothing at all like a new license. It's a simple request with a yes/no answer.

As I understand it, a "simple request with a yes/no answer" is a verbal contract that is recognized by law, at least in the US. Such a verbal contract in this situation, as you described it, would be licensing the material for use. Thus it's a license and, granted the difficulty of proving it (which is not relevant), can be used in court.

This semantic nitpick aside, and more to my point, asking permission of someone to use their material is something you could do for non-OGL material, and the copyright holder of non-OGL material could just as easily grant you permission to use it. In the exchange you suggest the OGL has been completely bypassed because the act of asking permission has created a completely new mechanism of granting rights to use the material via a verbal contract. What is the point of the OGL again?

Once given, no negotiation takes place. In comparison, if there were no license, there legal team would have to look over my request, carefully draft a document, and if no money were to be made. probably wouldn't happen.

Barsoomcore's permitted use of Modern SRD graphics in this very thread is a precise example of such a case where WotC allowed someone to use non-OGL content without any clear monetary benefit nor legal documents exchanged. This happens frequently with fan sites and fan material. Didn't Dragonlance, Dark Sun, and Planescape run like this for a long time too (some of them possibly still doing so)?

 

[Wasgo]

Ah, but you see, there is a license, and by the terms of that license, they have already said "yes" by the very act of using it.

No one has yet given a single valid reason why I, using the license as it was written, should have to ignore their original "yes" and provide them with a pointless opportunity to say "no" for whatever reason they feal like other than "it's polite". However, the only way it could be impolite is if permission wasn't already given, which it was when the license was used. Anyone that intends to say "no" shouldn't be using the license because the license doesn't allow "no" as an answer.

I really want this part of the topic to be dead, but I'll give one last reply. With many of the game publishers, they do 100% OGC which is the metaphorical equivilant of a blank cheque. The intended use is for it to be used to aid in the creation of of other products, but much like an actual blank cheque, you can't directly influence its use. By the terms of the license, they said I can use any OGC, not that I should. Laws can't tell people what they should do, only what they're allowed to do. So, some people, like myself, feel that by asking what they intend, we're extending control back to them that they gave away in the license. It's not required legally, nor directly by any implication on their part. But the bottom line is that they use the OGL to allow others to use their copyright, and when I use other people's ideas, I like to show them some respect. Especially if it may influence how they produce in the future.

But like I said before, I'm not trying to convince people not to OCR the WotC book, so I don't know where people get off trying to tell me not to ask for permission. That's their choice, and this is mine.

 

[Cergorach]

Although I do not want to deviate from the main target of the discussion (i.e., Unearthed Arcana), but have any of you ever think of doing SRD of third-party d20 products?

I know many of you are "gung-ho" (I apologize if it sounds aggressive) about doing such an UA SRD and distribute it, but why is it just WotC's products? What about a Field of Blood SRD, or a Spycraft SRD?

I mean, if you're gonna do one, you might as well do all.

Field of Blood 25% done
Spycraft 35% done
;-)

For FoB i was aiming for the 10th of may, don't know if i can make that though.
Spycraft is a lot of work, don't expect that in the next couple of months...

 

[Wasgo]

As I understand it, a "simple request with a yes/no answer" is a verbal contract that is recognized by law, at least in the US. Such a verbal contract in this situation, as you described it, would be licensing the material for use. Thus it's a license and, granted the difficulty of proving it (which is not relevant), can be used in court.

However, it is not a license considering there is already an existing license in effect that is not bound by any new license. Unless I explictly gave up my right to use OGC, the yes/no comment is merely politeness on my part. It is above and beyond the actual license and has no bearing on contract law.

This semantic nitpick aside, and more to my point, asking permission of someone to use their material is something you could do for non-OGL material, and the copyright holder of non-OGL material could just as easily grant you permission to use it. In the exchange you suggest the OGL has been completely bypassed because the act of asking permission has created a completely new mechanism of granting rights to use the material via a verbal contract. What is the point of the OGL again?

Barsoomcore's permitted use of Modern SRD graphics in this very thread is a precise example of such a case where WotC allowed someone to use non-OGL content without any clear monetary benefit nor legal documents exchanged. This happens frequently with fan sites and fan material. Didn't Dragonlance, Dark Sun, and Planescape run like this for a long time too (some of them possibly still doing so)?

What you're saying here is simply not true. As someone who followed the Dark Sun and Planescape licenses, WotC drafted a really strict contract that said essentially "We can take away your rights at any time," and as Barsoomcore mentioned, they can do the same for the graphics. The OGL grants non-exclusive, absolute rights to do with the material as you please to a large extent. It is a very different type of contract than those granted on a per-use basis. Simply put, this one has legal backing, and those don't. So, if I ask WotC permission to reprint a feat from the Complete Warrior, I'd be granted limited use. It could be retracted at will, and a verbal contract wouldn't hold water. Whereas if I reprinted material from Unearthed Arcana, I would legally be in the right. The OGL is a quick method of allowing use of your copyright, without dealing with it on a case-by-case basis.

Moreover, once again, I'm not saying that one would want to contact a publisher every single time they use OGC (I would, but that's beside the point.) I'm saying, when you strip the PI, and re-release one of their works, you're essentially creating a competing product and potentially hurting their business. Asking for permission allows them to say either "No, it will hurt our sales," or "Yes, go ahead, we don't mind." It has nothing to do with the OGL, and everything to do with supporting the companies that produce the material I love.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I really want this part of the topic to be dead, but I'll give one last reply.

I'm sure you do wish it would go away because it's the point that shows that you don't have a friggin' clue.

With many of the game publishers, they do 100% OGC which is the metaphorical equivilant of a blank cheque. The intended use is for it to be used to aid in the creation of of other products, but much like an actual blank cheque, you can't directly influence its use.

Exactly!

By the terms of the license, they said I can use any OGC, not that I should. Laws can't tell people what they should do, only what they're allowed to do. So, some people, like myself, feel that by asking what they intend, we're extending control back to them that they gave away in the license. It's not required legally, nor directly by any implication on their part. But the bottom line is that they use the OGL to allow others to use their copyright, and when I use other people's ideas, I like to show them some respect. Especially if it may influence how they produce in the future.

Several points...

1. No one is saying that we should use the material. However, we are allowed to choose to use the material. What you are suggesting is to relinquish our right to use the material on the whim of the original Contributor.

2. The manner of showing an original Contributor respect is clear in the license: Don't use their PI and list them in Section 15.

But like I said before, I'm not trying to convince people not to OCR the WotC book, so I don't know where people get off trying to tell me not to ask for permission. That's their choice, and this is mine.

No one's telling you not to ask for "permission". What we're saying is that it is rediculous of you to insist that we should ask for permission when that permission is already granted and it is rediculous of you to imply that we are being disrespectful for it.

Go right on ahead and ask permission all you want. Go ahead. Ask away. That doesn't bother any of us in the slightest. Just don't expect anyone else to be as anal about it as you are.

 

[Wasgo]

I'm sure you do wish it would go away because it's the point that shows that you don't have a friggin' clue.

First of all this is flaming.

1. No one is saying that we should use the material. However, we are allowed to choose to use the material. What you are suggesting is to relinquish our right to use the material on the whim of the original Contributor.

No, I'm saying this is what I'm going to do. As I've already said, other people can set their own morals where they choose. It's not a matter of right morality versus wrong morality. It's a case of what I believe is fair is different than you. Glad you can understand that.

2. The manner of showing an original Contributor respect is clear in the license: Don't use their PI and list them in Section 15.

Remember how laws don't have spirit? They also don't have built in repect.

No one's telling you not to ask for "permission". What we're saying is that it is rediculous of you to insist that we should ask for permission when that permission is already granted and it is rediculous of you to imply that we are being disrespectful for it.

I'm not insisting you do anything! I already stated that people who wanted to do this should be left alone to do it. The fact you're not remotely go by my actual opinion is more annoying than anything else. The topic I was discussing was off-topic and has nothing to do with your project. And I'm not stating you're being disrespectful. To me, it doesn't show enough respect. Your code of conduct isn't the same as mine, and nothing says it has to be. I want the topic to die so that people can work on their respective projects instead of flaming. (Much like your post.)

Go right on ahead and ask permission all you want. Go ahead. Ask away. That doesn't bother any of us in the slightest. Just don't expect anyone else to be as anal about it as you are.

Let me explain this simply. I don't care what you do. The topic was brought up about OCR other companies OGC, and I was seeing what other people thought about asking the companies themselves. Just because you can't be bothered to read through all the posts, doesn't make it right for you to go off half-cocked.

I'm not challenging your right to the project, I'm not challenging your conduct. I'm simply saying that the license itself doesn't dictate how it will be used. How you intend to use it is up to you, but laws don't dictate morality. Laws don't have spirit, morality, fairness, or anything else. It's just a contract. How I intend to use that contract, in no way impedes on your usage. The only reason I got back on this part of the topic at all is because I'm being attacked, and it's hardly limited to my views.