Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenjib" data-source="post: 1493967" data-attributes="member: 530">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.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification