OGC _and_ free-for-use?

[Mark CMG]

Well, if you are using OGC, I would assume that you'll place the OGL in your document, and update your Section 15 to include the Section 15 entries of all sources that you borrow from, so credit will be given where credit is due, by virtue of that alone.

This is the most respectful way someone can approach any project that will use OGC is to properly use the license as the license is meant to be used.

(An extra note somewhere would probably be appreciated, too, at least in some cases).

I've seen a number of people suggest over time that if a company does not wish to be mentioned beyond that which is required by the OGL, then they must be adverse to having their OGC used in any manner. This is patently untrue. Anyone who uses the OGL to release OGC does so with the full knowledge of what that means, knowing that others who properly use the license are free to use any OGC released under that license.

Here's a question. Will you use the OGC of a company that does not wish to give permission for you to utilize their name/trademark/IP/PI beyond the section 15?

Personally, I know that releasing OGC under the license allows others to use it when properly following the OGL, and I whole heartedly hope companies use any OGC I contribute to the pool of OGC available but I do not generally give permission to use my name/trademark/IP/PI beyond that which the license allows. I would be very disappointed if someone refused to use my OGC based on that lack of permission.

Gathering sections/portions of OGC from a full product to combine with sections/portions of OGC from other products, and even possibly with some new OGC of your own, is a quite proper and respectful way to utilize OGC and the OGL. However, if we are getting into a discussion about stripmining all OGC from a product or products and putting it out wth no value added, raw, if you will, for free or for pay, then I would think that to be very disrespectful, even if a proper use of the license, though there is really nothing to stop you.

 

[jdrakeh]

Just checked out the NB of feats myself; I had no idea anyone was still maintaining that! Just out of curiosity: are there any plans for more PDF releases (ie, should I just get HTML), and do you know if any of the other old NBs are still maintained?

Yeah, I had no idea that it had been updated to 3.5 rules, myself. I download the hyperlinked HTML copy for my new palmtop (when it arrives). I think that it'll be a great resource during actual play.

 

[Ry]

Will you use the OGC of a company that does not wish to give permission for you to utilize their name/trademark/IP/PI beyond the section 15?

Gathering sections/portions of OGC from a full product to combine with sections/portions of OGC from other products, and even possibly with some new OGC of your own, is a quite proper and respectful way to utilize OGC and the OGL. However, if we are getting into a discussion about stripmining all OGC from a product or products and putting it out wth no value added, raw, if you will, for free or for pay, then I would think that to be very disrespectful, even if a proper use of the license, though there is really nothing to stop you.

I would rather republish just a few templates and feats from OGL sources and credit them in the E6's section 15. I certainly think E6 provides value added, and it's not my intent to stripmine anyone's work just to redistribute what they did. I'd just like to have a collection of solid feats and templates that I can include with E6.

The reason I started this thread is that I was under the impression that some OGL developers were upset with even that level of use.

 

[jdrakeh]

The reason I started this thread is that I was under the impression that some OGL developers were upset with even that levle of use.

Some of them are, though honestly, they have nobody to blame but themselves (though some of the try really hard to avoid accepting responsinbility for their own actions). If a given publisher didn't want people republishing certain material, they should have either:

A. Not declared it as OGC.

or

B. Not published their game under the OGL.

They put OGC out there, knowing full well what the terms of usage were. If they didn't like those terms, they shouldn't have signed on for the ride. This business of publishers crying foul when others use OGC material in their products is BS. You can't benefit from the OGL and hoarde all of your IP for personal use. That's not how open licenses work, and publishers know it.

More importantly, perhaps, they knew it when they published products and made declarations of OGC (and, again, if they didn't that is also their fault). This whole "I made that available but YOU if you use it!" business (which, in fairness, has subsided a great deal as of late) is just dirty pool politics of irresponsible publishers trying to hang their own mistakes on the coat hooks of others.

 

[Mark CMG]

The reason I started this thread is that I was under the impression that some OGL developers were upset with even that level of use.

I would doubt anyone could be upset at such a turn, as long as you properly use the OGL. My one caveat is that I had no idea what E6 was as the link in your sig was not working earlier so I had to post to general cases rather than to your situation specifically. Best of luck with the project. Feel free to drop me a line when completed if you want to have someone glance over your OGL compliance. I'm always happy to give my publisher's opinion, to try to spot any errors and help you get them straightened out before distribution, though I make no guarentees that I will catch them all. Just an extra pair of eyes, is all.

 

[Ry]

Thank Mark - this is a ways off but I will definitely take you up on that.

 

[Mark CMG]

(snip)

So what is up with that darned skull tattoo? (James auctioned his head to a publisher and supposedly has someone's logo on there but has been very quiet about the whole thing!) Is it going to be unveiled soon? Will it happen at a convention? I keep waiting to hear more about it and never seem to hear anything at all!

 

[Mark CMG]

Thank Mark - this is a ways off but I will definitely take you up on that.

Cool. Glad to help if I can!

 

[jdrakeh]

So what is up with that darned skull tattoo? (James auctioned his head to a publisher and supposedly has someone's logo on there but has been very quiet about the whole thing!)

You'll have to trust me when I say that publically revealing the photos or auction winner's name at this point in time would undoubtedly be a bad thing. I can't really say more than that. When the winner wants to make the disclosure, they can. Of course, locally, the cat is pretty much out of the bag -- so I owe a huge debt of gratitude to all of you who know and have kept your mouths shut. Thank you.

 

[Mark CMG]

You'll have to trust me when I say that publically revealing the photos or auction winner's name at this point in time would undoubtedly be a bad thing. I can't really say more than that. When the winner wants to make the disclosure, they can. Of course, locally, the cat is pretty much out of the bag -- so I owe a huge debt of gratitude to all of you who know and have kept your mouths shut. Thank you.

My folks are going to be in CO Springs this weekend. Better wear a hat.