Massive Open Content SRD

[philreed]

If I encountered a company that consistently released SRDs of their main products, I'd learn to wait for it. Unless, of course, I'm purchasing a book for any closed content.

And right there you've explained why it's not in my best interest to release free SRDs of my material. I have two reasons for writing and publishing game material:

1. I enjoy it.
2. It pays my bills.

That's it. If #2 is eliminated then I'll be moving on -- #2 is more important than #1. I'll either go back to another game company or return to corporate America (which is a lot more likely since the money is better).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I guess it's not enough that you don't need the permission of the publishers, you also want us to do the work as well-- work that, in all likelihood, would invalidate the hard work we've already put into it.

There's absolutely nothing preventing this project from moving forward. OGC is OGC-- it's not like you need the permission or complicity of the publishers.

Just be mindful of the license.

It's work, to be sure.

 

[Yair]

Since there is so much objection to the notion of the MassiveSRD, I personally decided to drop the ball. I think I'll join up with the FGA to establish a good format for OGC content for now. I reckon that by the time that's done and OGC that is already free (primarily the SRD) is entered into the format, chances are this issue would be resolved.

For the life of me I can't understand why people I respect (like Wulf or Phillip Reed) would publish material as open game content and expect it to be closed to the internet ad infinitum. I personally won't be making a massive OGC compilation in the foreseeable future, but I'm pretty sure someone will.
I don't want the gaming industry (and by that I definitely mean small one-person operations) to slow down or diminish, but if the publishers won't take into account the possiblity of a MassiveSRD I suspect that sooner or later it will.

P.S. Normally, a publisher can expect to retain copyrights for a LONG time and hence profit from his work all his lifetime. It is reasonable to build a buisness model that says a product will enter a small diminishing return indefinitely. It is not reasonable to build a buisness model that says OGC will remain the copyright of its writer, it just won't: you've signed off the rights, how can you expect to retain them at the same time? I'm sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[philreed]

For the life of me I can't understand why people I respect (like Wulf or Phillip Reed) would publish material as open game content and expect it to be closed to the internet ad infinitum.

I do it for other publishers. Also, I've had many gamers contact me to let me know they're taking a class or feat or spell or whatever and including it in their campaign document.

EDIT: Gamers including the material in the document for their groups is cool. It shows me people are using and enjoying my work. A group of people collecting and distributing ALL OGC in existence isn't a group of people gaming with the material.

The point of OGC isn't to deliver everything created to the web for free. It's to help publishers build off of each other and, in the end, sell D&D.

I guess what I can't understand is why this concept is so hard to understand. It's likely just that we're both looking at it from two completely different angles.

 

[Cergorach]

It is not reasonable to build a buisness model that says OGC will remain the copyright of its writer, it just won't: you've signed off the rights, how can you expect to retain them at the same time? I'm sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Erm, the OGC a writer writes is copyrighted by him, even if you use it in an OGC compilation. We can use it under the rules of the OGL, that's all.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

A post like this, so completely ignorant of the OGL, is why this project seems doomed to fail.

For the life of me I can't understand why people I respect (like Wulf or Phillip Reed) would publish material as open game content and expect it to be closed to the internet ad infinitum. I personally won't be making a massive OGC compilation in the foreseeable future, but I'm pretty sure someone will.

Nobody is expecting it to be Closed to the internet. It is Open. But there are two thoughts here at work among the publishers:

1, exemplified by me) Do what you want with my OGC. Just make sure that what you're appropriating is, in fact, Open; be mindful of the license; and don't expect me to do the work for you.

It's Open. Go get it. Don't drop the ball and then expect me to pick it up for you-- not just on the general principle of that, but also on the principle that I have no vested interest in seeing this project succeed. None. Zip. Nada. I just don't have TIME to be involved in something like this.

2, exemplified by others) If you take all of my Open Content and publish it for free, I will not publish any more Open Content.

Neither of those positions takes anything close to the approach of "My Open content is Closed."

It is not reasonable to build a buisness model that says OGC will remain the copyright of its writer, it just won't: you've signed off the rights, how can you expect to retain them at the same time? I'm sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

It doesn't make any sense because you haven't read the License with the same diligence that those of us who have a vested business interest in the License have done. Open Content is still protected by copyright. That's why there's a Copyright Notice in Section 15.

 

[Yair]

A post like this, so completely ignorant of the OGL, is why this project seems doomed to fail.

I was rather careless in my use of language. I apologize.
I am sure you're more competent in OGL matters than me. You make your living out of it. But I assure you I'm not ignorant of the OGL. Well, at least I'd like to think so.

Do what you want with my OGC. Just make sure that what you're appropriating is, in fact, Open; be mindful of the license; and don't expect me to do the work for you.

I wasn't the one asking you to make SRDs out of your documents. The closest I got was to say that SOME publishers might acutally like people spending the time and effort to make SRDs out of the published product for free (if for no other reason that I know you "I just don't have TIME to be involved in something like this.").
In other words: I'm not the one this attitude relates to.

It's Open. Go get it. Don't drop the ball and then expect me to pick it up for you-- not just on the general principle of that, but also on the principle that I have no vested interest in seeing this project succeed. None. Zip. Nada. I just don't have TIME to be involved in something like this.

I won't "go get it" if you don't want me to. I sure have the legal right to do so, but I respect you (and the other publishers) too much to do something that will hurt you even if I legally can, and you made it clear in this thread that you strongly disagree with the MassiveSRD concept. (The "go get it" sarcasm aside.) I don't expect you to do the work, of course, and that is NOT what I was implying.

If you take all of my Open Content and publish it for free, I will not publish any more Open Content.

Neither of those positions takes anything close to the approach of "My Open content is Closed."

I think the latter comes pretty close. It's sort of like extortion (it isn't, the guys making it are stating a fact, but it has the same basic effect). I guess it actually works on me - when a guy tells me he won't publish and I value his stuff, I don't want to be responsible for him not publishing. But I don't see how you can base your buisness model on frightening off others; sooner or later someone will come who does not dread the moment you'll stop publishing.

It doesn't make any sense because you haven't read the License with the same diligence that those of us who have a vested business interest in the License have done. Open Content is still protected by copyright. That's why there's a Copyright Notice in Section 15.

I know this very well. Again, I was careless in my wording. My point was that you have given up your exclusive control over your copyrights, by allowing others to Use the work under the OGL. Without even needing your consent or acknowledgement. That point still stands.
By "closed to the internet" I meant "I won't find it by googeling", not "available only in print form" or "not Open Game Content". In that respect, your material is still closed. I believe it won't be so idefinitely, and I'm surprised you seem to base your buisness model on the assumption that it will.
It still doesn't make sense. You can't base your buisness decisions on expecting OGC not to be released in this format or that form (which are allowed under the OGL), it's just bad buisness. I still don't get it.

Edit: My original post was somewhat snarky and short tempered, hopefully I've toned it down a notch..

 

[Yair]

The point of OGC isn't to deliver everything created to the web for free. It's to help publishers build off of each other and, in the end, sell D&D.

I agree the OGL was sold to and accepted by WotC as a means of selling D&D. No argument there.
But that is not the "point" of OGC. There is no point to OGC. It just is OGC, material distributed under the OGL. That's it. It isn't inherently there to help sell D&D, or help publishers, or for any other purpose. It can and in the long run will be used for whatever purpose its users want it to.
For you, the "point" of the OGL is apparently to aid publishers. For others, the "spirit of the OGL" will culminate in the creation of an open and free gaming utopian community. These are just idealogies. In the end, the OGL will be used to further them all, and I would think this should be taken into account.

I guess what I can't understand is why this concept is so hard to understand. It's likely just that we're both looking at it from two completely different angles.

It would seem so. :\

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Forgive me for not being accurate in my terminology in the heat of the moment

There's no "heat" here. I apologize if anything I've said has heated up this discussion.

I wasn't the one asking you to make SRDs out of your documents. The closest I got was to say that SOME publishers might acutally like people spending the time and effort to make SRDs out of the published product for free (becuase it isn't worthwhile for the publisher to spend time doing it, just like you say). In other words: I'm not the one this attitude relates to.

Then don't take it personally. But there are a few folks here who think that publishers should not only be giving their OGC away for free (which, by definition, it already is), they should also be doing all the work necessary to make it even easier for other people to give it away.

I won't "go get it", since you don't want me to. I sure have the legal right to do so, but I respect you (and the other publishers) too much to do something that will hurt you even if I legally can, and you made it clear in this thread that you strongly disagree with the MassiveSRD concept.

I have? I most certainly have not. I don't strongly disagree with it at all. I strongly disagree with the assertion that it's my responsibility to provide electronic versions of my OGC to accelerate the project. And I strongly disagree that the project will end up benefitting me in any way.

By "closed to the internet" I meant "I won't find it by googeling", not "unavailable as an online content (e.g. pdf)" or "not Open Game Content". In that respect, your material is still closed. I believe it won't be so idefinitely, and I'm surprised you seem to base your buisness model on the assumption that it will.

No, I don't. My "business model," such as it is, involves selling print products. (My "gamin' money" involves selling the odd PDF.) But other publishers-- the ones who are most easily abused, whose work is already in electronic format-- will be severely and negatively impacted by a MassiveSRD that strips and hoards Open Content.

I guess it actually works on me - when a guy tells me he won't publish and I value his stuff, I don't want to be responsible for him not publishing. But I don't see how you can base your buisness model on frightening off others; sooner or later someone will come who does not dread the moment you'll stop publishing.

Well, again, I don't, and I wouldn't presume to speak for folks who do, but I will say this: It's working so far. You're not alone. I think "it works" on a lot of folks.

And I'm not trying to frighten off anybody. I suppose if one was afraid of work, what I am suggesting might be considered "frightening off."

It still doesn't make sense. You can't base your buisness decisions on expecting OGC not to be released in this format or that form (which are allowed under the OGL), it's just bad buisness. I still don't get it.

I don't base my business decisions on that. (I also don't base my business decisions on what I perceive to be a very small minority of people who think there's some benefit to creating my OGC to an XML standard.)

And you can always flip the decision around, of course. Would you base your decision to create a MassiveSRD project on the likelihood that it will drive publishers out of the OGC creation business? That doesn't make a lot of sense, either. (And since you've already said that you wouldn't, please understand "you" isn't here directed specifically at you, Yair.)

The Mass Combat system in Slavelords is Open Content. It's all of 8 pages. You could type it up in an afternoon and (if I do say so myself) it would be a great start to your MassiveSRD.

Assuming you felt it was that important to deny me the $1.95 I charge for it at RPGnow. (That's my gamin' money, after all.)

So, this isn't any huge revelation, but, yes: there's a sort of friendly understanding where the OGL is concerned. No, it's not legally binding, but I honestly do believe that most people feel that maintaining that friendly relationship is more valuable than anything to be gained by souring it.

 

[Yair]

There's no "heat" here. I apologize if anything I've said has heated up this discussion.

And now my moment of shame lives in infamy. If only I've pressed the Edit button sooner... curse your swift fingers

Then don't take it personally. But there are a few folks here who think that publishers should not only be giving their OGC away for free (which, by definition, it already is), they should also be doing all the work necessary to make it even easier for other people to give it away.

I think it can benefit some publishers, for some works, and therefore see merit in the publishers cooperating in these cases. But generally speaking, I agree - and publishers aren't to be expected to do all the work involved in extracting OGC from their own works even if it benefits them. It's a lot of work, it just ain't worth it.

I have? I most certainly have not. I don't strongly disagree with it at all. I strongly disagree with the assertion that it's my responsibility to provide electronic versions of my OGC to accelerate the project. And I strongly disagree that the project will end up benefitting me in any way.

Alright, now I'm confused. Compare with...

...other publishers-- the ones who are most easily abused, whose work is already in electronic format-- will be severely and negatively impacted by a MassiveSRD that strips and hoards Open Content... I honestly do believe that most people feel that maintaining that friendly relationship is more valuable than anything to be gained by souring it.

... aren't you saying that you think the MassiveSRD is a BadIdea(TM used without permission)?

Well, again, I don't, and I wouldn't presume to speak for folks who do, but I will say this: It's working so far. You're not alone. I think "it works" on a lot of folks.

Well, at least I'm not alone.

(I also don't base my business decisions on what I perceive to be a very small minority of people who think there's some benefit to creating my OGC to an XML standard.)

I support the idea of making an XML standard. As someone who does, let me just say that I see no benefit to you as a publisher in having your OGC ported over to this format. Not at this point.

The Mass Combat system in Slavelords is Open Content. It's all of 8 pages. You could type it up in an afternoon and (if I do say so myself) it would be a great start to your MassiveSRD.

Assuming you felt it was that important to deny me the $1.95 I charge for it at RPGnow. (That's my gamin' money, after all.)

Actually, I could copy-paste it so it would take even less effort. I already payed the 1.95$.
Edit: nevemind.