Massive Open Content SRD

[Wulf Ratbane]

So if someone were to make a free pdf collecting various pieces of OGC, and they contacted you about this, would you provide them with the electronic files, provided the S15 copyright is clear and correct?

The answer ranges from "Possible" to "Probably" but is certainly not "Definitely No."

This is precisely what happened in the case of Hot Pursuit. Corey contacted me, asked for my OGC, and I handed it over to him-- and in addition, I cleaned up the Section 15 copyrights for him.

I am not at all surprised, after the effort he put into Hot Pursuit to create an improvement over the prior art, that he did not give his own work away for free. But that was certainly never a condition of my help.

Which is not to say that you can't use my Open Content for free or without my permission. You can. You just can't use my Product Identity, and as I said before, I consider my writing style to be PI.

Some people can write. Some people can't. The fact that I can write, that I can do it clearly and concisely, and that I can do it in a way that meshes with the existing body of d20 work, is a valuable skill. Surely you've bought products from other publishers and thought, "Great idea, poor execution."

So use the ideas, but do the writing yourself, be mindful of the license, and don't expect me to do all the work.

I'm guessing the answer is NO, and I would like to hear more on your reasoning behind that.

Well, no, you guessed wrong. I honestly don't know why you jumped to that conclusion. I don't have any inherent antipathy towards this project. I simply hopped in to explain why my OGC/PI designations are what they are.

But if "ideas" are "gold," then I would prefer that my ideas be invested, not hoarded. DO SOMETHING with my OGC besides hoarding it. Corey invested Grim Tales OGC into Hot Pursuit, and turned it into something greater than it was.

If it's clear to me that this MassiveSRD project has some function beyond simply hoarding OGC, I'm with you.

But my impression is that this will be nothing more than a hoard of OGC, and my strong suspicion is that a simple hoard of OGC would do more harm than good. I would be curious to hear some rationale why a publisher would want to make the process any easier than it already is. (Speaking only for myself, I would do it because ultimately I'm a pretty nice guy, and I'm only in this business because I really, truly enjoy creating games-- as opposed to, say, having to feed my kids or pay my rent.)

 

[Planesdragon]

You just can't use my Product Identity, and as I said before, I consider my writing style to be PI.

While I'm not a lawyer, a "writing style" strikes me as impossible to protect. If I have to re-write your entire work to use it, then it's not OGC. (I could re-write Storyteller and release it as my own OGC if I really wanted to and were willing to risk legal review.)

Maybe I missed something. Doens't matter, though, becuase I have a more important point to make:

If it's clear to me that this MassiveSRD project has some function beyond simply hoarding OGC, I'm with you.

While single "MassiveSRD" wouldn't be much more than a horde of OGC, there are three seperate but interrelated projects being talked about on ENWorld this week.

1. The MassiveSRD
2. Nopants is trying to create a standard means to describe a RPG book to a computer program. (link)
3. The FGA is starting work on an XML standard, so that OGC of all types can be interchanged more effectively.

The last one, for obvious reasons, is the one I'm most interested in. And I think that you or Phil or anyone else would be well-served to adopt it, because when you do want to send someone your OGC (such as a freelancer or another publisher you want a relationship with), a clear standard lets you be unambiguous about what is and isn't OGC, and what attributions have to go in with what sections.

(Not to mention that the end-user who takes a bit from your book, an bit from core, and bit from someone else's would benefit from being able to add them all together and print out one book with a single index instead of four. Or print out four books but have one massive index to all of their books...)

 

[Cergorach]

The attitude of some publishers reminds me of this story:
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5656047.html

You want to publish under the OGL, live with the consequences. Want to make everything OGC, live with the consequences. The problem is that making everything OGC is part of the marketing strategy by the publisher, start locking up content and see sales drop (unless you have a particulary good product or reputation). And we all know that the sales loss of even a % or two will kill the profit margin of most publishers.

That doesn't mean that you can't be civil to each other, releasing a product verbatim right after it's release is inconciderate at best. Personally i think that a year after initial release should cover the publisher enough to make a living. Now i know that pdf publications have a lot longer lifespan then print books and you might still make sales after a year, but those are the cracks of the whip you chose to toil under.

Now don't get me wrong, i wouldn't want to take an entire pdf publishers catalogue and release it verbatim after a year, but certain products are just to damned usefull to not use.

 

[The Sigil]

I feel obligated at this point to jump to the defense of Wulf. I thought the stuff in the "Craft skill" sections of HoHF: Dwarves and HoHF: Half-Orcs was great stuff, and wanted to incorporate it into the Enchiridion of Treasures and Objects d'Art. I contacted him to ask for permission to reference his products by name in the appropriate areas. He was gracious enough not only to grant that permission, but to provide the text of the Craft section of the (then not-yet-published) HoHF: Elves in electronic format for my easy use (and permission to reference it, too, of course) so I could incorporate that as well (I don't recall if I "beat HoHF: Elves" to press - I don't think I did - but I found it awesome that he was willing to share that small section that I could potentially have cranked out before he got his own product out there).

Based on that experience, Wulf is not someone whom I would characterize as nasty about the re-use of his OGC, and in fact, he's probably one of the most "helpful" publishers I've dealt with in terms of making it easy for you to re-use his OGC. There are a lot of "good guys" in the d20 publishing industry - I want to make that clear - and Wulf is definitely among them.

--The Sigil

 

[Conaill]

Well, no, you guessed wrong.

See - that's why I asked you to elaborate in the first place! Thank you for doing so...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

While I'm not a lawyer, a "writing style" strikes me as impossible to protect.

You may very well be correct. I'll be in line behind Monte Cook if it doesn't work.

If I have to re-write your entire work to use it, then it's not OGC.

Well, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.

Take Hot Pursuit and put it down next to Grim Tales. A perfect example.

There are three seperate but interrelated projects being talked about on ENWorld this week.

None of which are significantly on my radar...

The last one, for obvious reasons, is the one I'm most interested in. And I think that you or Phil or anyone else would be well-served to adopt it, because when you do want to send someone your OGC (such as a freelancer or another publisher you want a relationship with), a clear standard lets you be unambiguous about what is and isn't OGC, and what attributions have to go in with what sections.

I have no need for such a format. Is this something that I need and I just don't know it yet?

(Not to mention that the end-user who takes a bit from your book, an bit from core, and bit from someone else's would benefit from being able to add them all together and print out one book with a single index instead of four. Or print out four books but have one massive index to all of their books...)

Index? What are you talking about?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I feel obligated at this point to jump to the defense of Wulf.

Thank you, Sig.

Honestly, I really shouldn't need it. My Open Content declarations are not unclear nor draconian. I can only assume that anybody that has a problem with my OGC declarations

a) hasn't even seen one of my OGC declarations

or

b) doesn't understand the license.

Generally speaking, my OGC is completely open to the point where there's hardly any Product Identity-- as in the case of all HOHF books, and all of the game mechanics in Slavelords (to include, most prominently, the Mass Combat system).

Folks need to understand that Product Identity is used to identify and "distill" non-open elements that appear within Open Content. There is no PI without OGC.

Usually, at least in my stuff, this is just going to apply to illustrations. If I say, "All of Chapter 8 is Open Content" then unless I also say, "Illustrations are Product Identity" then that means I have just released the illustrations as Open Content.

(Oh, and since I allow artists to retain copyrights to their own work, that would be pretty rude. I know-- allowing artists to retain copyrights to their own work after I've paid them. I'm such a bastard.)

Because of the "component" element to Grim Tales-- an eminently strip-minable product if there ever was one-- I was just a little more careful. I spent close to 2 years working on Grim Tales, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone who wants to use it to put forth a fraction of that effort to separate my ideas from my writing (as Corey did with no trouble).

 

[Conaill]

If it's clear to me that this MassiveSRD project has some function beyond simply hoarding OGC, I'm with you.

"Hoarding" is rather a strange choice of words in this context, because it implies locking something up as private property just for the satisfaction of having it, without actually doing something with it.

In that sense, "hoarding" seems precisely the opposite of what the open SRD camp wants to do. My impression is that they want to collect it in electronic format to open it up to the wider public, (1) as a resource for gamers who would no longer have to buy the individual sources (in that respect they obviously go diametrically against the best interest of the publishers!), and (2) to encourage re-use of material by other authors.

The latter point I think *is* a worthy one. I have heard several authors state that one of the reasons why they keep reinventing the wheel is that the OGC is often so poorly defined that they'd rather avoid legal hassles altogether by coming up with their own rules - even if perfectly acceptable rules already exist. If we could clean up the legal ambiguities in one central OGC resource, that would definitely lower the threshold for reuse of rule sets that have proven their quality over the years.

Not sure the MassiveSRD proposed here is the right mechanism for the job, or even if this is at all possible under the current OGL, but I do think encouraging reuse (and further elaboration) over reinvention is a worthy goal...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

"Hoarding" is rather a strange choice of words in this context, because it implies locking something up as private property just for the satisfaction of having it, without actually doing something with it.

No, in this case I meant, "Piling it up with no purpose other than seeing how much you can pile up." Or, to put it another way, take "locking it up" out of your definition and you nailed it.

(1) as a resource for gamers who would no longer have to buy the individual sources (in that respect they obviously go diametrically against the best interest of the publishers!),

I am encouraged that you at least acknowledge that...

and (2) to encourage re-use of material by other authors.

You're suggesting that I, who use and publish OGC, and have an understanding of the OGL commensurate with the risk it poses to my business, when faced with a source whose OGC designation I can't understand, am going to turn to a fan-community project and trust to the OGC designation there.

The latter point I think *is* a worthy one. I have heard several authors state that one of the reasons why they keep reinventing the wheel is that the OGC is often so poorly defined that they'd rather avoid legal hassles altogether by coming up with their own rules - even if perfectly acceptable rules already exist.

Honestly, I think the more realistic reason is that every game designer thinks his way is the best way.

I do think encouraging reuse (and further elaboration) over reinvention is a worthy goal...

I agree, which is why you will find the OGC designation in the front matter of Grim Tales specifically designed to encourage that.

 

[Mark]

"Hoarding" is rather a strange choice of words in this context, because it implies ...

It doesn't imply anything. He means collecting for the sake of building the collection. People who are suggesting such collectors are working from a mandate of the people, or from the publishers, are not (though they may claim, true or not, that they believe there to me a useful outcome). They don't know what others will do with such a hoard. Whether the initial hoarder cares about it or not, the hoard is then available for free for anyone to do as they will, regardless if the subsequent persons will properly follow the OGL or not. Not only has this not been addressed by those who have proposed to collect but it is unlikely they could do anything about it anyway if someone were to follow up and stripmine the stripminers but then ignore any of the legal requirements previously adhered to by anyone. Are there unscrupulous people out there who would take advantage of "the hoard" and turn all of that material around on p2p networks and whatnot if it was all piled up in an easy to scoop format and one location? I don't think anyone but a complete knucklehead could believe it would not happen.