Is the Unearthed Arcana SRD online?

[Jarf]

True, but allow me to bring up a point: If I'm transcribing it, I have it. It's hardly free if it's bought and paid for. Granted, some people might want an extraction for the sake of getting free stuff. But those of us doing extractions have obtained the material at standard cost.

Admittedly, someone could obtain a pirated copy and do an extraction, and no one could tell the difference; I would agree that this is a "double-wrong", as the extraction would be used by others in good-faith that everything about the document (which includes origins) was on the up-and-up. I would likely be very vocal about making such a thing known should I ever learn about it.

Sure, and I'm all for extractions. What I'm talking about is copying an entire book, minus half-a-page worth of PI. To me (and my code of ethics), that is wrong. The situation changes a bit once the product is out of print. Of course, that is my opinion, and no one else has to agree with it.

 

[kenjib]

Besides, if I post the text of a book on-line and flat-out tell people that they are free to print it out and sell it, I can't really complain when they do.

But by licensing material out under the OGL, the publisher actually is flat out telling people that they are free to print it out and sell (or give away) the open content. It's right there in the license. Every book published says this explicitly, whether or not it says so in a redundant FAQ on a web page somewhere. So why are people complaining now when people want to do that with Unearthed Arcana?

I think the SRD materials are a special case, in any event, since they are the backbone of the whole Open Game concept.

Well, there's no real arguing with that point either way. One can agree with it or not. I would say that the OGL is bigger than the SRD, and I think The Sigil has done a good job of explaining why.

 

[Jarf]

But by licensing material out under the OGL, the publisher actually is flat out telling people that they are free to print it out and sell (or give away) the open content. It's right there in the license. Every book published says this explicitly, whether or not it says so in a redundant FAQ on a web page somewhere. So why are people complaining now when people want to do that with Unearthed Arcana?

Well, there's no real arguing with that point either way. One can agree with it or not. I would say that the OGL is bigger than the SRD, and I think The Sigil has done a good job of explaining why.

Sure, I've read some of The Sigil's posts, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with him. I'm really not trying to argue a point here, anyway (I hope I've made that clear in previous posts); I'm just trying to express my point of view as a small publisher/author, not ram my point of view down anyone's throat. The posts within this thread are interesting with predominately rational and well thought-out arguments from both sides.

Believe it or not, these discussions may influence some of what we do - for example, based on feedback (or information gleaned) from discussions like this one, we may be more inclined to offer sections of our products as on-line OGC once the initial run has turned a profit. Monsters, skills, feats, things like that.

This is all off-topic from the original point of the thread, anyway . I still haven't figured out if the U.A. SRD is on-line or not...

To address your first point last: I realize OGL allows people to copy and give away the open content. The "Ultimate" guides from Mongoose are a good example of a publisher taking advantage of this. But - those guides contain bits and pieces of other works, not large chunks of them. I personally wouldn't copy and post the entirity of someone else's product (especially one that still has available stock) because I know how much effort (and, more to the point, money) it takes to actually produce and distribute a printed game supplement - kind of like the "priceless" credit card commercials, once you finish. That said, I realize some people are going to take advantage of the OGL to strip out OGC. That is their perogative, and I understand that completely.

UA seems like an odd-case anyway - seems like half of the thing is just ripped out of Call of Cthulhu, or d20 Star Wars, or d20 Modern, or even other publisher's works.

If you don't agree with what I'm saying, that's fine with me. It is, after all, a free country (more or less).

 

[Cergorach]

Sure, I've read some of The Sigil's posts, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with him. I'm really not trying to argue a point here, anyway (I hope I've made that clear in previous posts); I'm just trying to express my point of view as a small publisher/author, not ram my point of view down anyone's throat.

Oh!!! I suddenly know what to call my next sword: "Point of View". ;-)

The posts within this thread are interesting with predominately rational and well thought-out arguments from both sides.

I just wished that same people would stop throwing the same arguments at each other...

Believe it or not, these discussions may influence some of what we do - for example, based on feedback (or information gleaned) from discussions like this one, we may be more inclined to offer sections of our products as on-line OGC once the initial run has turned a profit. Monsters, skills, feats, things like that.

Allright! Finally this headache... Erm, thread is starting to make some publishers think about how they'll deal with OGC and actually post their thoughts...

This is all off-topic from the original point of the thread, anyway . I still haven't figured out if the U.A. SRD is on-line or not...

As far as i know it isn't yet.

Finally someone that isn't trying to convince the rest of the world that his "Point of View" is the only "Point of View"...

 

[Bendris Noulg]

This is all off-topic from the original point of the thread, anyway . I still haven't figured out if the U.A. SRD is on-line or not...

Well, I will relate this:

Earlier in the thread I indicated that I was nearly done with Sanity and that anyone wanting the extraction should email me for it.

No one did so.

A little later, I indicated that I was extracting Taint and gave the same invite.

Same lack of response.

Which, one might say, puts a big hole in the entire "people just want free stuff" theory since no one's contacting me for the free stuff.

As is, I don't think there will be one until one of the people that did an OCR scan gets their's online. They're the only ones interested in doing the entire thing themselves with the means of doing it easily and quickly. Granted, I would still like to get such a copy to seriously cut-down on transcription time (hint hint), but for now I just gotta do the parts I am using the same way I've done it for the last decade: Type, type, type, type, type...

 

[woodelf]

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.

That's why i don't ask. It just doesn't make much sense to ask permission to reuse material that has been designated reusable. Otherwise, if i ask and the creator says "no", then what? If i intended to reuse the OGC regardless of their answer, then why ask? And if i'm gonna get permission anyway, why limit myself to OGC? I may as well ask to use some of the closed content, too.

Now, i might contact someone to see if they're willing to provide the OGC in digital form, but i'm not gonna bother asking just to reuse the OGC.

 

[woodelf]

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?

I dunno if it's their intention, but i'll accept it as a possible interpretation. With the caveat that, under that interpretation, any bits that are listed in the PI declaration and *don't* appear in the D20SRD *aren't* PI--they would be "erroneous" or "irrelevant" [depending on your interpretation of the license] declarations. IOW, if they succeeded (and, IIRC, they did), the PI declaration becomes moot.

 

[Ranger REG]

That's why i don't ask. It just doesn't make much sense to ask permission to reuse material that has been designated reusable. Otherwise, if i ask and the creator says "no", then what?

Although this is a case-by-case basis, but if said creator said "no" to you despite the fact that he already declared the content in question OGC, it's pretty much out of his hand ... until you violate the OGL.

Your asking him is merely a courtesy call, as Monte Cook's Book of OGL Etiquette have stated.

If i intended to reuse the OGC regardless of their answer, then why ask?

Again, courtesy call. Don't judge ALL OGC contributors on the action of a few misguided ones.

And if i'm gonna get permission anyway, why limit myself to OGC? I may as well ask to use some of the closed content, too.

If you wish to use certain closed content, go ahead.

Granted, I believe that Andy Collins jumped the gun regarding the reprinting of OGC in UA. In a perfect world, we gamers are not going to copy the OGC merely to distribute it because we believe it would hurt the sale of the UA book and thus hurt the company's revenue and their employees' income. In a perfect world, only publishers should make full use of the OGC for whatever products they wish to sell on the market. But it's not a perfect world. But as much as there are irresponsible individuals in this world (both adults and minors), there are responsible individuals in this world.

The only thing WotC can do is provide the best product on the market at an affordable price that few gamers would dare to copy and distribute, and monitor OGL usage (seek a license violation quota, like traffic violation quota that local cops do).

 

[woodelf]

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.

OK. The spirit of the WotC OGL is sharing content, therefore i can ignore the PI and trademark clauses, because the letter of those parts violates the spirit of the WotC OGL, which is supposed to be an open-content license.

You see, that's the danger of "spirit-over-letter" arguments: the spirit is a nebulous concept, and reasonable people may disagree over it.

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.

And it is my understanding that in a lot of jurisdictions (certainly in this one), speeding tickets are often reduced, if you make the court appearance, to the amount you were exceeding traffic flow, rather than the speed limit. But that's probably not a good example, because it's tainted with all sorts of cultural baggage. Frex, around here speeding tickets are routinely reduced in this manner (even for repeat offenders), even when traffic flow was 10-15mph over the speed limit. And speed limits (and red lights) are very poorly enforced to begin with. Unlike pretty much every other traffic law. In short, you can be weaving in and out of rush-hour traffic, doing 10mph faster than traffic flow and 20mph over the speedlimit, and get the ticket reduced. But when i ran a stop sign due to extraordinary circumstances, regained control of the car maybe 20' past the stop line, only risked the actions that caused my mistake after having ascertained that the only other vehicle within several blocks was on the other side of a divided highway more than a block away, and did all this with a sparkling-clean record, i couldn't get them to reduce it it all, much less to a warning. Setting aside personal opinions of the foolishness of my actions, or my culpability, it is demonstrable statistical fact that what i did was *far* less dangerous to myself or society than speeding in heavy traffic. Yet our society is pretty laid back about speeding. So it's probably a really poor example.

Back to the spirit-vs.-letter argument: what if the actual spirit of speedlimit laws isn't to keep people safe, but to establish culpability? IOW, if i'm not speeding and someone steps out into the road in such a way that i can't stop, it's not my fault because i "wasn't doing anything wrong", but if i'm speeding, it is my fault. I honestly believe that's an equally-reasonable interpretation of the spirit behind speed limits, but it leads to different "appropriate" behavior than the one you put forth.

 

[woodelf]

Correction: Spycraft is not a completely closed system. At the time of the book's release, only one game content remained closed and are used with permission by Wizards of the Coast: VP/WP health system. But for the most part, mainly the ruleset, Spycraft is a third-party d20 product in compliance with the OGL.

I let this slide the first time, 'cause it's just not relevant to the argument. But, if we're gonna get it right, i'll point out that it's not at all clear that the WP/VP system that AEG got permission from WotC to use in Spycraft remained closed content. According to the OGC/PI declarations, it is OGC. While it's true that there's a separate statement acknowledging special permission to use that subsystem, there's nothing in that statement to imply (much less state outright) that AEG didn't have authority to contribute it as OGC. So, while it is quite possible that WotC intended it to remain closed at that time, it appears that AEG didn't understand that, or goofed, and, regardless, rendered the content open. And, since, as far as i can find, no one at WotC or AEG has ever officially errataed that, i'd say that, even if Unearthed Arcana hadn't come out, that subsystem is definitely OGC by now. (i'll accept that there should be some allowance made for errors. But even a known error uncorrected for 3+ years (in this industry) pretty much has to be irrevocable by now--and, for all we know, it's not an error.)