Massive Open Content SRD

[Nifelhein]

i am amzed to ehar some companies have taken the monster name out of the OGl license, since they made it with the SRD and used the license they are bound to have it as open game content, sure they can protect a given name but then I would say they should give another name to the thing.

The legal issues based on the OGL can be quite tricky yes, but they are also quite simple if you follow two basic guidelines, the first one being the OGL itself, the second being the OGL and updated sections of the product you are taking the information from.

You cannot use anything that showcases the origin of the rule except from updating the last section of the OGL, which you are bound to do, you could simply put the OGL as the frontpage for the rules and anyone reading there would know where it came from.

Sure, product names are IP and copyrighted, but they are bound by the license to have it there anyway, look at WotC's UA/Au, whatever.

The idea is good, the actual working is tricky. You have quite a deal of problems too if you consider the matter of having WotC covering the most they can with their products which are not OGC.

As for law issues, it could be a little problematic to a company to get a teenager on a far country, not as easy as mailing them and asking for their cooperation on changing A or B in order to comply with the license...

Sure lawyers cost money and when it involves peope on other countries it can cost more and create more problems, even with the USA usually exxtending their laws above and beyond other countries.

 

[The Sigil]

is there really a point to protecting monster names or spell names? (Not including licensed properties, of course.)

No.

There are many publishers who BELIEVE you should protect those things, and BELIEVE that their work is really valuable, and who are somewhat paranoid of someone else coming along, taking their content, and undercutting them...

But looking at things realistically (at least, my opinion of "realistically"), when most (print) publishers are one or at best two "flops" away from closing their doors, and the sales cycle is 30 days (60 at best), the answer is, "{expletive} no."

The 30-day sales cycle means it would be near-impossible for someone to undercut you; by the time they take your stuff and re-publish it, your sales cycle on that product is essentially over... hence the "undercut" would be too late to have any effect.

The fact that your products aren't producing gobs of cash (keeping you one or two flops away from closing shop) says that the stuff in them simply isn't all that valuable (in a commercial sense, not in an aesthetic sense, mind you) - if it were really commercially valuable, you wouldn't be on such a shoestring.

Publishers will tell you the above are the reasons for obfuscating OGC declarations. The reality is (usually) that the stuff is "their baby" and they want to keep control of their little baby for sentimental reasons (for which they can hardly be blamed, I suppose)... and, I suppose, on the fear that if they release the stuff as OGC, somewhere, somehow, someone will take this great content and figure out a way to make money off it and they won't get a cut. Again, I think this is a bit foolish, given the value of the commercial material itself (see the preceding paragraph) - if some third party does come up with a great idea to make money off the material, most of the "money making capacity" will be in the third party's idea, not the publisher's material. But of course, every designer (myself included) thinks his stuff is the greatest thing since... well, whatever came before sliced bread... we tend to have egos that way.

There are a few exceptions to the above, but I think it's a fairly good rule of thumb. Mongoose Matt spoke tangentially about this long ago when he mentioned that most people try to come up with a figure for how much their stuff is worth, and that figure usually winds up around (Dr. Evil voice) "ONE MILLION DOLLARS" (/voice) but they're vastly over-estimating things and not being realistic... the real value is considerably less (the real value, in case you need a hint - is the profit you're actually turning).

Of course, part of the problem, too, is that the commercial market probably DOES undervalue the work game designers put in (pays less than minimum wage and everybody but the designer/publisher usually makes more money off the product than the designer/publisher does) ... but unfair as that is, it's economics 101 - the value of your work is exactly what the market will pay you for it, no more, no less. This is (rightfully) off-putting to the designers, so they "retaliate" by closing things up. I honestly think that the decision to open as little content as possible is almost always an emotional decision rather than a true business decision.

Sorry if that sounds harsh or defeatist, but I think that's the reality of it. Publishers do the "obfuscating OGC" thing to protect the (usually imagined) value of a work that in most cases has so little value that it isn't worth protecting in the first place (I speak here of the copyrighted material they produce, and not trademarks, because trademarks are a different ball of wax). If you're a publisher, that doesn't mean I think your work sucks, it just means that I'm resigned to the fact that the market doesn't think our work is nearly as valuable as we think it is.

--The Sigil

 

[Nifelhein]

As a complement, trying to obfuscate the OGC in a product can turn it agaisnt them, I think one could aruge how a Pretige Class called Aradil's Eye in a Midnight product produced by FFG is OGC and they would argue how it is OGc but Aradil is PI and cannot be used.

In my opinion it could be turned against them since they used it in a place where OGC is supposed to be and so we have a case, in this one I have changed the name to Wiitch Queen's Avatar, just to avoid any potential problem, although as a Law student, i could stand in a fight were I to keep the original name.

 

[Mark]

I would focus on a best of the d20 product and add to it as folks choose to.

Follow the OGL in good faith and you will be just fine. A simple mistake or two, especially in the case of those with hazy designations, is nothing to worry about. If the publisher is concerned they will send you a cease and desist way before they take you to court.

If it's a worthwhile project to you - go for it.

Yup. Now this kind of thing I think is more likely. I just hate to see some well intentioned gamers get involved with some overblown project that will ultiimately lead to nothing but frustration and sours them on the hobby. Grab a handful of rules that you like in your campaign that also happen to be OGC and put together a one or two page document that highlights them, with some of your own additions if it makes sense to do so. Keep the designations and licensing simple and correct. Get a couple of people with some experience (like pogre, perhaps, but particularly someone familiar with the source material) to give the licensing the once over, then distribute it to your hearts content. Keep the goal small, and focused, and the little that is accomplished will be both satisfying and useful to people, primarily because it can be accomplished at all.

 

[Mark]

I honestly think that the decision to open as little content as possible is almost always an emotional decision rather than a true business decision.

You might be right but it doesn't change the fact that under the OGL the reasons someone decides to open something or not aren't at issue.

As you know, there are things that are required to be open (already open content and content derivative of already open content), things that you can open but don't have to be (content you own the right to open but that isn't derivative), and other things that cannot be opened (content you don't own the right to open).

"The Spirit of the OGL" is just a phrase that people trot out when other people don't agree with their vision of what should be opened.

 

[Yair]

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. SOME publishers would actually LIKE guys creating an SRD-like document for them for free, and may let them indicate compatibility in retun (plus maybe an add?). Some would even use the work to create an approved extract, I'd imagine.
A site quoting and analyzing the OGC/Section 15 declarations of various products may be useful or interesting, but cannot be a part of the use of OGC under the OGL, and specifically cannot be used to indicate compatibility.
Although it may be possible to circumvent this via Fair Use. For example, by comparing the extract and original in a "legal interpertation & review" site not-affiliated with the OGC-Extract site yet containing prominent links to both the extract and the product... but that's just too lawyery to be done without a lawyer.

I also believe that witholding OGC does help certain companies. Most publishers are well aware of this and don't declare setting-related fluff as OGC, for example. Not declaring proper names and spell descriptions except mechanics as OGC DOES make using them in another product without the publisher's consent harder, and therefore increases the chances of a seperate agreement being used (however slightly). I don't like it, but I don't think it lacks any economic sense.

I agree that a limited extraction of good-quality OGC with enhancement and revision would be more useful. It also would be more work, less exhaustive, and far more subjective. The advantage of extracting OGC as-is is that it forms a baseline to build on, and is much easier (and therefore faster).
It is my experiene that people are too prefectionist. They want a super-hyperlinked pdf document with graphics and a slick design, and won't release anything that doesn't live up to their high standards. That is counter-productive. I'm interested principally in the text; once the text is extracted, niffty layout, graphic design, or revisions can be made by interested parties - indeed, it is more likely to draw people interested in enhancing the content in this manner. Trying to do everything yourself or to perfection is not a good idea IMHO.

As an aside, as I'm living oversees I believe (and hope...) suing me will be prohibitly expensive. Especially since it isn't needed - a simple email should correct any wrong-doing.

 

[Yair]

I think (as has been sort of stated above) that in this case, we should ask, "what do we hope to gain?"

I think we would gain an on-line shared base to work from, one we can copy-paste from or browse for inspiration/ideas. I know the on-line SRD aids me a lot as a DM, I'm hoping to extend such aid to other products.

This is a LOT of work, with a capital LOT.

Which is why I suggest limiting it to a straight, plain-text extract of selected works. No frills, editing, revision, fancy design, hyperlinking, or whatever. Big projects need to be tackled one step at a time; the first step is to make the extract, section by section (each as a seperate document by a seperate volunteer).

 

[DaveMage]

"The Spirit of the OGL" is just a phrase that people trot out when other people don't agree with their vision of what should be opened.

I don't think that's fair.

I use the term based on Ryan Dancey's article on open gaming. Specifically, his description of the "Copyleft" legal concept, which he states is "...a way of forcing everyone to allow anyone to use a given work pretty much any way they want to, and not be able to restrict those rights." (http://www.enworld.org/article.php?a=1)

While "copyleft" is not what the OGL is, per se, the concept of the OGL is partly based on it, and hence, IMO, is the backbone of the spirit behind the OGL.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

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. SOME publishers would actually LIKE guys creating an SRD-like document for them for free, and may let them indicate compatibility in retun (plus maybe an add?).

I'd love to see Behemoth3's Open Game Content included in a SRD -- our own SwoRD project, which would do just that, has for better or worse taken a back seat for the moment to making new content. But how I feel about it is immaterial if you follow the OGL, which isn't that hard to do. (Thanks to jmuchiello for helping us draft a clear & reuse-friendly OGC declaration!)

I think it's much better for any publisher if their work is credited than if it's reused without any connection to its source. Basically, I feel like the quality of our work is the best advertisement for Behemoth3, but that value is lost if you don't know that we wrote the good bits of the megaSRD and not the crummy ones!

Unfortunately, giving credit where credit is due does require permission under the OGL (unlike simple re-use). So we set up a blanket permission for anyone to acknowledge the source from which our open content was taken. From the inner front page of A Swarm of Stirges:

A Note to Publishers:
Behemoth3, Inc. enthusiastically supports the open source licensing movement, and we salute the creators of the Open Game License for this revolutionary contribution to our community. In this spirit we are glad to release sections of this book as open game content. We hope other creators will be inspired to re-use and build upon this content in their own works. If you do, we encourage you to use the following limited license as well as the Open Game License. We feel that citation of the source in which an idea originally appeared is essential to the vitality of all open intellectual systems. This limited license is designed to facilitate such citation; we hope that other publishers will consider including similar licenses in their own releases. If you have any questions, please contact licenses@behemoth3.com.

Limited License for the Use of Product Identity (PI) To Attribute the Source Of Open Game Content (OGC)
Behemoth3, Inc. hereby grants royalty-free limited license to use the product identity elements “Behemoth3, Inc.,” “Masters and Minions”, “Horde Book 1,” and “A Swarm of Stirges” in works which reuse open game content from this book under the terms of the Open Game License. These PI elements may be used only for the purpose of attributing the source in which the reused OGC originally appeared. Any work making use of these elements must 1) designate these elements as product identity in accordance with section 1(e) of the Open Game License version 1.0a and 2) bear a notice declaring the fact that Behemoth3, Inc. and Masters and Minions are trademarks of Behemoth3, Inc. and that Horde Book 1: A Swarm of Stirges is copyright 2004 Behemoth3, Inc.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I suppose it makes very little difference to me, as a consumer, but I appreciate the way Bastion has embraced the spirit of OGC, and kind of roll my eyes at publishers who think their "crunch" content has to be protected with confusing OGC declarations, or that the names of prestige classes are really that valuable a property.

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.