Massive Open Content SRD

[Mark]

Yes they are. But I deal with contracts on a daily basis in my job, and I guarantee you that I will terminate a contract in a second if someone continually breaks the spirit of it, regardless if they are following the letter of it. ("Termination at Will" clauses are my friend.)

And *I* guarentee that if you continually try to "adjust" the terms of a contract by invoking "The Spirit of the Contract" you will have fewer and fewer people entering such contracts and you will wind up dealing with "Laws" (my friend?).

 

[Vocenoctum]

My OGC designations these days are pretty much just designed to keep folks from scanning, cutting, and pasting wholesale.

I don't mind folks using the crunch-- but do me the courtesy of actually reading it and thinking about it and putting a bit of effort into it-- even if it's so small a gesture as to actually type it out.

I can understand your not wanting everything Open, given a lot of the litte products are mostly rules. But, I do think a Grim Tales SRD would help your system and it's add on products sales.

 

[Vocenoctum]

It is clear to me that the name of the extracted product could not be mentioned except under the Section 15, unless the publisher gives his consent to do so.

Easiest way would be to simply have each product sampling taken from a given product in it's own file, with it's own OGL setup.

No need to designate paragraph's 1-8 as from one book and paragraphs 9-20 from another, simply split them into two files.
Yeah, it'd make for an awful lot of OGL's, but it'd be clear where the material is from. It being an electronic media, the extra page wouldn't matter a whole lot.

 

[DaveMage]

And *I* guarentee that if you continually try to "adjust" the terms of a contract by invoking "The Spirit of the Contract" you will have fewer and fewer people entering such contracts and you will wind up dealing with "Laws" (my friend?).

Huh? I don't ever adjust anything. But there is an expectation that is (usually) shared when contracts are created. Both sides (usually) expect value. However, very few contracts cover every contingency. There is an understanding that people follow the "spirit" of the agreement in such cases.

At any rate, I agree that we've beaten this horse into creamation. If my feelings and my own strange brand of logic on the subject are frustrating or angering you (or just not making sense), then I apologize, as that's certainly not my intent. I only have a desire (irrationally?) that everyone plays as openly as they can. I realize it won't happen (and doesn't *have* to happen), but it's a fantasy I'll continue to have.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

Easiest way would be to simply have each product sampling taken from a given product in it's own file, with it's own OGL setup.... Yeah, it'd make for an awful lot of OGL's, but it'd be clear where the material is from.

As a creator and publisher of open content, having it be clear to the reader where the material comes from is important to me. I'd rather that it be done as Yair suggested, by having my source product identified by name & with a link to the website where it can be purchased -- for the same reason that I'd like retailers to display Behemoth3's books on the counter next to the cash register instead of buried in the back under a pile of 2E splatbooks.

 

[Mark]

Huh? I don't ever adjust anything. But there is an expectation that is (usually) shared when contracts are created. Both sides (usually) expect value. However, very few contracts cover every contingency. There is an understanding that people follow the "spirit" of the agreement in such cases.

No matter what your position, a particular view of how a contract is meant to be best used is not meant to supercede the actual terms of how it it meant to be used per its language. In the case of the OGL there is actual language crafted into the licesne that explicitedly denies the allowance to place additional terms or conditions on the use of OGC beyond what is outlined in the license. Dance around with "Spirits" all you like, the language is clear.

At any rate, I agree that we've beaten this horse into creamation. If my feelings and my own strange brand of logic on the subject are frustrating or angering you (or just not making sense), then I apologize, as that's certainly not my intent. I only have a desire (irrationally?) that everyone plays as openly as they can. I realize it won't happen (and doesn't *have* to happen), but it's a fantasy I'll continue to have.

I have a desire that no matter how openly anyone plays, they maintain the rules and don't try to sidstep them.

 

[The Sigil]

Stripmining the OGC from products isn't really about trying to help the original publisher.

Not to change the subject, but does stripmining the OGC from a product appreciably harm the publisher either?

I'm genuinely curious here... as I stated in my long post, assuming any meaningful delay between press and "stripmine," the sales cycle is complete before the stripmine sees the light of day, and therefore it is too late to do appreciable harm.

Publishers (in general) seem to be asking, "how will this help me?" Could the question be "how will this harm me?"

If there is no harm, why not give your permission to others to "stripmine" your (old and no longer commercially valuable) stuff?

* Problem with most is, you never know what might become a phenomenon. What if Midnight became a huge success with movie, book and toy tie-ins? Suddenly, all the names of people and places in Midnight have great value. While TDG publishes as 100% OGC, any setting we publish will PI all the names, places, themes, etc therein because, you never know what might take off. (Although I might forgoe PIing the poses. )

I'll stir the pot a little bit here and make a bold prediction or two here:

Prediction 1: A 100% OGC setting, completely free of PI is the only type of setting that has a chance to become a huge success with movie, book, and toy tie-ins... because the movie, book, and toy people can (for the most part) use it for free.

Prediction 2: No PI'd setting will ever "take off" and become a huge success with movie, book, and toy tie-ins.

Call this the It's a Wonderful Life phenomenon. It's a Wonderful Life became huge in the public consciousness only when it was thought to be out of copyright and thus EVERYONE (especially niche cable channels that couldn't afford licensing fees) used it for free (speech + beer). Because everyone could use it for free, it got tons of exposure... and only with tons of exposure could it become huge.

Of course, as soon as someone came in and finagled a way to claim it back under copyright (by claiming the soundtrack, IIRC) and demanded licensing fees to run it (i.e., making it no longer free), it became MUCH less popular.

D&D/d20 went through the ENORMOUS boom it did in 2000 and 2001 because of the It's a Wonderful Life phenomenon... it was essentially FREE (in both the sense of beer and speech) so everyone was using it and everyone knew about it. The d20 license has started to fall out of favor with many companies... because it has become too restrictive (i.e., not fully "free"). It's why, IMO, while OGL/SRD use remains high, the use of the d20 trademark has been dropping (and I predict it will continue to drop unless WotC relaxes the terms of the license to make it closer to "free" again).

That's the price, I think, of getting your setting published in books and movies and stuff... you have to make it free (as in beer and speech both) and let some other rat bastard make the money off it.

Of course, I could be totally wrong, take this with a grain of salt... but that's my feeling.

--The Sigil

 

[Mark]

Not to change the subject, but does stripmining the OGC from a product appreciably harm the publisher either?

Appreciably? Who makes the call? If no one stripmines, no one has to make the call. If people stripmine, publishers have to decide for theselves and adjust their openness accordingly.

 

[DaveMage]

No matter what your position, a particular view of how a contract is meant to be best used is not meant to supercede the actual terms of how it it meant to be used per its language. In the case of the OGL there is actual language crafted into the licesne that explicitedly denies the allowance to place additional terms or conditions on the use of OGC beyond what is outlined in the license. Dance around with "Spirits" all you like, the language is clear.

I have a desire that no matter how openly anyone plays, they maintain the rules and don't try to sidstep them.

I'm not sure where you are getting the impression that I want to place additional terms or conditions on the license. I do not. Nor do I want anyone to sidestep the rules or violate any of the terms. (If I said something specifically that gave you that impression then consider it retracted.) Merely, I would like everyone to participate in the same way. This is a desire (however unrealistic), not a requirement.

 

[Glyfair]

Call this the It's a Wonderful Life phenomenon. It's a Wonderful Life became huge in the public consciousness only when it was thought to be out of copyright and thus EVERYONE (especially niche cable channels that couldn't afford licensing fees) used it for free (speech + beer). Because everyone could use it for free, it got tons of exposure... and only with tons of exposure could it become huge.

Of course, as soon as someone came in and finagled a way to claim it back under copyright (by claiming the soundtrack, IIRC) and demanded licensing fees to run it (i.e., making it no longer free), it became MUCH less popular.

I think your confusing popularity with availability. It's a Wonderful Life has always been a popular movie. However, when it was considered public domain, it was just more exposed. Indeed, I'll argue it was overexposed and thus less popular. I remember the last Christmas before Republic bought the soundtrack rights and started enforcing them that the movie was on almost one out of every four stations. Stations that were on hiatus for the holidays had it on repeat for the holiday.

Prediction 1: A 100% OGC setting, completely free of PI is the only type of setting that has a chance to become a huge success with movie, book, and toy tie-ins... because the movie, book, and toy people can (for the most part) use it for free.

I'll argue the opposite. If I'm doing a movie/book/toy tie-in, I want to know that I have the exclusive rights to develop that product. I'm not going to sink money into a project that my main competitor can decide to develop at the same time as me. Even if I think my project is ten times better, him doing so can only siphon off my success.