Massive Open Content SRD

[Mark]

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.

You're applying what Ryan says about a portion of a product, the OGC released by a publisher, and misinterpreted it. "Given work" is meant to describe the open content of a product and "copyleft" to describe its state of unhindered use after release (as restricted by by the dictates of the OGL, in the case of OGC). It isn't meant to suggest that all products should be 100% open. If that were the case, there would be no SRD and people would just be using the actual core books undistilled as WotC's primary OGC contribution. Based on that broader misinterpretation of what Ryan means by a "given work", you cite Bastion's policy of how much they open in the first place as your impression of "the Spirit". "Given work" is not meant to imply that an entire (100%) product is meant to be forced open regardless of the wishes of the contributor. If Bastion were to only open 5% of a particular product as OGC, that 5% would be the "given work" from that product, not the entirety of that product.

 

[Mark]

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).

The products I sell add "extensive formatting and cross-referencing" as my contribution to additional usefulness. If you aren't adding any value of your own, what is the point to the project except to take what you have legal access to, that someone else is selling as part of a larger work. I certainly won't question the legality of strip-mining but is the end goal (and potential ramifications from some publishers) really worth the effort?

You basically want to put a basket of free lemons on the side of the road where many others already have lemonade stands, and it seems that this is going to discourage a good number of people from planting as many lemon trees in the future.

From reading what you have written, I do truly believe you think there is merit in what you suggest doing but you might want to re-examine your goals and truly assess the possible ramifications of your efforts.

 

[DaveMage]

You're applying what Ryan says about a portion of a product, the OGC released by a publisher, and misinterpreted it. "Given work" is meant to describe the open content of a product and "copyleft" to describe its state of unhindered use after release (as restricted by by the dictates of the OGL, in the case of OGC). It isn't meant to suggest that all products should be 100% open. If that were the case, there would be no SRD and people would just be using the actual core books undistilled as WotC's primary OGC contribution. Based on that broader misinterpretation of what Ryan means by a "given work", you cite Bastion's policy of how much they open in the first place as your impression of "the Spirit". "Given work" is not meant to imply that an entire (100%) product is meant to be forced open regardless of the wishes of the contributor. If Bastion were to only open 5% of a particular product as OGC, that 5% would be the "given work" from that product, not the entirety of that product.

I'm not stating what I mean clearly enough.

I did not mean to suggest that Ryan is saying everything should be open. Because, yes, then there would be no need for an SRD. As I stated in a post above, there are things that one might want to remain closed: graphic elements, major proper names (campaign setting titles, prominent characters/locations), and "fluff" text.

However, my belief is that the spirit of the OGC is that those who are using rules OGC in a work to sell their own product should be as open with their rules content. You are correct that this is my interpretation, but I take objection to your comment that "'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". That comment is dismissive and a bit insulting.

However, that said, I *am* interested in hearing your interpretation of the spirit of the OGL, and what you think is reasonable for those using OGC to share. Or do you think there is no "spirit" and none of this type of discussion is worth anyone's time?

 

[Mark]

However, my belief is that the spirit of the OGC is that those who are using rules OGC in a work to sell their own product should be as open with their rules content. You are correct that this is my interpretation, but I take objection to your comment that "'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". That comment is dismissive and a bit insulting.

However, that said, I *am* interested in hearing your interpretation of the spirit of the OGL, and what you think is reasonable for those using OGC to share. Or do you think there is no "spirit" and none of this type of discussion is worth anyone's time?

That's not what is dismissive or insulting. It is nebulous to say "The Spirit of the OGL" because such a thing does not exist as a clear, single, collective definition held by absolutely everyone. The supposed "Spirit of the OGL" *is* what people nebulously use as "their interpretation of how things should be" when, in fact, the only thing that matters is what the license allows and what it does not. In fact, the license says directly that further restrictions cannot be placed on OGC beyond what is in the license, which is why "The Spirit of the OGL" is actually what is insulting. "The Spirit of the OGL" is how people add implied restrictions beyond what the licesnse allows. I'll say it again. There is no "Spirit of the OGL" and people who use the phrase are actually saying "This is how I think it should be interpreted and used regardless of what the document allows ... or in additional to what the document has defined and in spite of the FACT that the document says you cannot add further restrictions".

Think about what you are saying. You are saying that you think one particular company, perhaps a number of them, are properly following the license (in spirit) and that anyone who isn't doing it "that way" isn't doing it right (in spirit), regardless of if they happen to actually also be legally doing just what the document allows. Do you realize what stones it takes to say "I don't care if you are donig what is legal, it doesn't follow what I think is best so I will create a nebulous terminology to make it appear as if you are trying not to live up to what I think the license should actual be requiring"? THAT is the attittude that people should find insulting and dismissive, but as long as you leave things nebulous enough a lot of people who may or may not specifically agree with your exact interpretation can "in principle" agree with what you say, can't they?

One person, to use an extreme example, could have in their mind that "The Spirit of the OGL" requires a blood sacrifice, but as long as noone defines "The Spirit of the OGL" then everyone can be in seeming agreement regardless of how disparate individual definitions might be in actuality. That's why "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. That's why the OGL is what it is and doesn't have a "Spirit" or any mention of one within it.

You say you may not be stating what you mean clearly enough? Then, instead of tossing around phrases like "insulting" and "dismissive" tell me in plain language what you think the license actually and legally allows, what you think it should allow, what you consider to be "The Spirit of the OGL", how those three things differ, WHY those three things differ, and why you think the license specifically disallows adding restrictions on OGC beyond what is in the license. I've spent a great deal of time and effort having to know what I am allowed to do legally under the license and *I* find it insulting that *you* feel you can discuss a legal situation (of which I am a part) with ill-defined phrases in order to potentially cast aspersions on my professional efforts. That you can toss around such ill-defined phrases is dismissive of the last four years of my professional life.

So, where does that leave us? Am I now an ogre?

 

[The Sigil]

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.

True on all points. I wasn't trying to say, "publishers aren't following the 'spirit of the OGL'" or condemn those that don't. I was simply making an observation (that, objectively, most publishers don't gain much, if anything, with a tight designation) and making a speculative guess as to why someone without much to gain (in an objective sense) would do it anyway.

I'm not saying tight designations are "wrong" and generous designations are "right." I hope it didn't come across that way. I happen to believe generous designations are "right" which is why I use them in my own products, but I'm not about to tell someone else how to do their designations. I'm just trying to deduce the reasoning for doing it differently than I do, because I don't truly understand why it is done, and I'm sure there must be a reason for it. I'm trying to discover that line of reasoning (as I often do when I see people doing things that I don't agree with - I figure, "they must have some reason for doing things this way" and I want to figure out what that reason is... so that if I see their reasoning is better than mine, I can adopt their method).

--The Sigil

 

[Yair]

This will be a "talking to Mark" post, apparently.

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).

Just as an aside, I've found that some things that are required to be open aren't always so. Most declaration take steps to prevent this ("and all material dervied from OGC or the SRD" or somesuch), but some don't.

Think about what you are saying. You are saying that you think one particular company, perhaps a number of them, are properly following the license (in spirit) and that anyone who isn't doing it "that way" isn't doing it right (in spirit), regardless of if they happen to actually also be legally doing just what the document allows.

I'm not american, but it is my understanding that there is a legal term of "the spirit of the law". Something can be done that is strictly legal, and yet not in accordance with the spirit of the law. Are you saying such a concept doesn't exist?

and last but not least...

The products I sell add "extensive formatting and cross-referencing" as my contribution to additional usefulness. If you aren't adding any value of your own, what is the point to the project except to take what you have legal access to, that someone else is selling as part of a larger work. I certainly won't question the legality of strip-mining but is the end goal (and potential ramifications from some publishers) really worth the effort?

You basically want to put a basket of free lemons on the side of the road where many others already have lemonade stands, and it seems that this is going to discourage a good number of people from planting as many lemon trees in the future.

From reading what you have written, I do truly believe you think there is merit in what you suggest doing but you might want to re-examine your goals and truly assess the possible ramifications of your efforts.

You raise good points. I'm doing some hard thinking about what my goals are and how best to acheive them. I essentially want an on-line SRD like document to browse and copy-paste from that contains an exhaustive compilation of OGC, preferrably linked to the original products for purchase. I'm not quite sure how best to approach this with my meager resources and without making publishers ... well, stop publishing.
I'm thinking...

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

I essentially want an on-line SRD like document to browse and copy-paste from that contains an exhaustive compilation of OGC, preferrably linked to the original products for purchase. I'm not quite sure how best to approach this with my meager resources and without making publishers ... well, stop publishing.
I'm thinking...

The part I've put in bold might make the difference between publishers perceiving the megaSRD as undercutting their sales vs. helping to sell their product. One could track traffic to the publisher's site through a link like that and demonstrate that having OGC in the megaSRD could be a way to build awareness and increase sales.

I'd recommend asking for permission from the publishers whose OGC you'd be using before doing anything. You'd need to do that anyways to cite the source (and, perhaps, to link to it), and it'd go a long way to allaying fears of lawsuits and ill will in the gaming community.

I've contacted a number of publishers to ask for permission to recommend their products by (PI) name in an OGL-covered work, and have consistently found them to be friendly, quick to respond, and glad to support gamer community spirit and get their name out there. Getting the cooperation of publishers could also make the task much easier - they could provide you with electronic text of their OGC, for example, and save you the trouble of scanning and OCRing it.

 

[Conaill]

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.

Hi Wulf - I have to admit that I don't really understand this. Why would it matter to you whether they scan it in or type it out by hand? If anything, the latter seems more likely to introduce mistakes (apart from OCR typos, of course).

Why is "putting a bit of effort into it" a favor to you? Reminds me of the old computer programmer's joke: "if it was hard to write, it should be hard to read too".

It sounds to me like you don't really like the open and free use the OGL advocates. Could you say some more about how you feel about this as an author and publisher?

 

[Mark]

Just as an aside, I've found that some things that are required to be open aren't always so. Most declaration take steps to prevent this ("and all material dervied from OGC or the SRD" or somesuch), but some don't.

Be specific. Blanket accusations do no one any good. Who has kept closed material that should be open and what is the material that should be open? Make sure you are right, though, when you are making accusations. Consider it your first foray into the world of being legally correct while under the microscope with the rest of us who do it for a living.

I'm not american, but it is my understanding that there is a legal term of "the spirit of the law". Something can be done that is strictly legal, and yet not in accordance with the spirit of the law. Are you saying such a concept doesn't exist?

There is a difference between "a law" which is meant to cover a general situation or set of circumstances and "a contract" which is a legally binding agreement that is meant to cover specific circumstances and define circumstances beyond the need for interpretation. I do not believe that is something peculiar to America.

You raise good points. I'm doing some hard thinking about what my goals are and how best to acheive them. I essentially want an on-line SRD like document to browse and copy-paste from that contains an exhaustive compilation of OGC, preferrably linked to the original products for purchase. I'm not quite sure how best to approach this with my meager resources and without making publishers ... well, stop publishing.
I'm thinking...

Fewer trees, with fewer lemons on them, with more spots on the lemons that would need to be extracted (PI), and all of the other things that tend to annoy other publishers who might then utilize less and less of other people's material, etc. It's a slippery slope of legal obfustication that I'd rather not contemplate. Yet, what is the upside? Freely distributed OGC for the sake of freely distributed OGC? How many will benefit from whatever gets accomplished compared to how many might be harmed by the backlash? Heck, I don't know and it really won't change the way I do things bvut I'm just a one-man operation and not personally responsible for large swaths of OGC year after year like some publishers who could actually be harmed by such widespread (though, granted, possibly legal) redistribution of the OGC they R&D product after product.

 

[DaveMage]

Think about what you are saying. You are saying that you think one particular company, perhaps a number of them, are properly following the license (in spirit) and that anyone who isn't doing it "that way" isn't doing it right (in spirit), regardless of if they happen to actually also be legally doing just what the document allows. Do you realize what stones it takes to say "I don't care if you are donig what is legal, it doesn't follow what I think is best so I will create a nebulous terminology to make it appear as if you are trying not to live up to what I think the license should actual be requiring"? THAT is the attittude that people should find insulting and dismissive, but as long as you leave things nebulous enough a lot of people who may or may not specifically agree with your exact interpretation can "in principle" agree with what you say, can't they?

Ok, I think I see where we are miscommunicating.

I'm not saying that publishers who don't share their content aren't doing it "legally" or "right". They certainly are from a legal perspective (at least I believe that most of them are). Whether they make it difficult to use their OGC or not is their business. I use the term "spirit" because in the few legal classes I have had, the theory comes up that there is the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". Both are valid legal concepts.

What I do have a personal issue with (and it's important to point out that this is a separate issue from the original topic of this thread), is that some publishers are more open than others with regard to their OGC. This is not saying they don't have the RIGHT to limit their OGC that, but rather that I am disappointed with the decision. I'd rather have publishers use each other's work and/or improve upon it as was one of the intents of Open Gaming to begin with (see Ryan's interview).

The risk with OGC is, unfortunately, the topic of this thread - that someone could publish your work in total (such as over the internet) instantly (relatively) without compensation or acknowlegement beyond the OGL Section 15 (as required). The threat of this action is partially why (IIRC) that WotC will probably not release something like Unearthed Arcana as 100% rules OGC again - for fear that their work will simply wind up for free in an online database.

Now, while these last two paragraphs may seem in conflict, the truth is, as I stated in a post long ago in this thread, that I'd like to see *publishers* use each other's OGC, clean it up if necessary for their use, and then present it to me for purchase.