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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1501679" data-attributes="member: 2013">Sure, let's look at the analogy.  It might be fun.  In fact, I'll pull a very relevant example of a GPL program... Jamis Buck's Treasure Generator. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I will differentiate among "source code" and "compiled program" and "output."  After all, the simple end user of a program isn't even interested in the program itself except insofar as it provides him with output (which could be graphics, a printed document, etc.).The "source code" of UA is, in essence, the Open Game Content - the text. The "compiled program" of UA is the finished product -the physical book, with formatting, artwork, binding, paper, ink, etc.  The output of UA could be considered to be the set of pluses, abilities, etc. it grants a character.The "source" of the Treasure Generator is... um... the source code. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  The "compiled program" is... um... the program.  The output is... um... the output (a nice tidy list of coins, magic items, etc.)The "end user" of UA knows he needs the book itself ("program") in order to get the adustments/abilities properly recorded ("the output") onto his character sheet.  This works just like any other product, including a "Closed Source" Splatbook.  It doesn't concern him that the source is open in UA any more than it concerns him that the source is closed in a Splatbook.  He's getting the output he wants.The only significant difference between the two is that the "barrier of entry" to re-use the "source code" is lower in OGL than GPL because re-use of the "source code" in the OGL requires only an understanding of the English language and... relatively common software tools (a text editor) or a photocopier to produce a "program" (a book, webpage, or other publication).  Re-use of the "source code" of a GPL program requires an understanding of English language AND an understanding of the computer language in which the original program is written AND requires a compiler to produce a "program."Look at the part I bolded above, because I think this is why you're having trouble with the parallel.  I submit to you that if you have a person who is "fluent" with C++ (the language in which the Treasure Generator is written) and has a C++ compiler, his re-use of Jamis Buck's program can be done as simply as his re-use of UA material.In all honesty, it depends upon what the usual "sales curve" looks like.  WotC's is probably a little longer than the typical publishers, but nearly every 3rd-party publisher is on record as saying over 90% of their sales occur within 60 - and probably 45 - days of release of a product.  It might even be interesting to conduct a poll to ask folks when they purchased UA... you'd probably see that sales over the last month or so have been near zero... the "sales period" is all but complete, it's hard to significantly impact sales that are on the same order of magnitude as zero.The problem is, this is a freaking HARD thing to do.  One of the "cans of worms" the internet has opened up is that it's REAL easy for anyone to be a "publisher" these days in the electronic medium of their choice (PDF, HTML, RTF, etc).  It's a nice pipe dream, but unless you have a "pay-to-get-in" license (which ISN'T open), it's all but impossible to effectively do.I can't think of a good way to communicate that point, but suffice to say that because "e-publishing" is a legitimate form of "publishing," WotC would have had an exceedingly hard time crafting a license that somehow controlled it without destroying the "Open" and "Free as in Speech and Free as in Beer" premises.It does... including those who are concerned about the impact "republishing UA to the web would have" - the fact that "it might hurt sales" blinds them to any other rational considerations.To me, the solution is... and has always been... "package your OGC right the first time" - if you do a good job packaging your OGC with non-Open portions (as noted above, production values, art, layout, etc.) it's a pretty good bet that you will have gotten through the 45-day window when most of your sales occur before someone finds a way to create a presentation that delivers similar value to what you have produced for a lower price.  I have yet to see an OGC product - ANY OGC product, including 100% OGC products - that had a republished version of itself see the light of day in a short enough period of time and with sufficient publishing values to impact sales  of the original.  I haven't even seen a "close call."If the amount of work "packaging" the raw OGC is substantial, that time required to add that value to the raw OGC will preclude anyone from reproducing the packaging in a time frame sufficient to impact your sales.Put another way, if you worry that a "plain text" copy of your OGC work is going to meaningfully impact its sales, your business plan sucks - you're not adding enough other value to your work.  I don't know about you, but I wouldn't pick up a "plain text file" version of UA's OGC instead of my current hardback version if it came out today.--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification