OGC Wiki?

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yes. But this is nothing new.

Okay, so then the problem is with people who don't follow the license, and not people who do. But that's a legal issue and not a moral one.

Assuming that people are following the license, and that the publisher designated the content as open knowing the implications of that act, where does the ethical trouble enter the situation? Why shouldn't people be able to say, "if you didn't want it to be redistributed, why did you make it open?" The purpose of making content open is to make it redistributable. There is no other reason to do so. It is, within the terms of the license, throwing your ideas on the table for other people to use.

 

[jgbrowning]

Sorry, I sincerly can not tell if you are being sarcastic here or not.

I'm serious. Although I don't like it even though I have agreed to the possiblity, ripping OGC wholesale and putting it up for free is legal.

It has already been called immoral in this thread.
And legally and morally the correct last sentence should just be "Just follow the rules." As long as "all" only refers to actual OGC, the last part doesn't fit.

The end bit is my personal opinion, not legal opinon.

joe b.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

That's why these threads always start out with someone asking when someone ELSE will start producing this free stuff for them.

Well, the last time I remember this happening (and I might have missed some threads), it was over whether someone was going to distill Unearthed Arcana into an SRD. And someone did, over at d20srd.org.

 

[jgbrowning]

"if you didn't want it to be redistributed, why did you make it open?" The purpose of making content open is to make it redistributable. There is no other reason to do so. It is, within the terms of the license, throwing your ideas on the table for other people to use.

For me the answer is, "Because I didn't have the choice to exclude Free distribution and wholesale distribution while including the other types I want to see thrive and grow." I had to take the bad with the good to use the liscense. I did so because I think there is more good than bad.

joe b.

 

[BryonD]

Laws can allow for immoral things because the people writing the laws feel the benefits of flexible interpretation outweighed the unlikely risks of abuse. For instance, free speech is protected in the United States Bill of Rights. Sure, I can use my protected free speech to tell the whole world that Tom Cruise is having problems in his marriage, or that he's really embarrassed about that new growth he has on his left butt cheek. However, in doing so I'm acting somewhat immorally, taking advantage of someone else. It's a fine line on a slippery slope coated with turtle wax, but it's something to look out for.

I put the majority of my books out as Open Content because I want other publishers to be able to use any rules they like in their own books. I want to foster the gaming industry, so that rather than three people creating redundant rules, they can pick what they think is best and use that.

It is not so much me saying "Everyone use this free" as it is me saying, "Well, US Copyright law is a mudpool of complications and difficulty, so the OGL is a pretty good solution. I just hope people don't sabotage the whole effort of enhancing the art of game creation by using the OGL to hand out all our work to people for free."

Without the OGL, collaborating and using rules created by others would be a pain in the ass, and fraught with risk of getting into legal issues. So yeah, I use the OGL because it's the best thing available. If there was a license that could manage to clearly state the letter of the law to match the spirit of "use this to help produce quality gaming products," I'd use that instead.

Shrug
You are imposing a narrow view on the OGL that isn't there.

Your generalized discussion of free speech doesn't really speak to the matter at hand.

And the spirit of the OGL is to help WotC sell product.
If you want your own OGL that actually meets the spirit you are calling for, then make your own. But you won't have access to the SRD.

Nothing you said shows that using voluntary OGC in a compliant manner is immoral.

 

[RangerWickett]

I want other people to be able to use my stuff in their books, but I don't want someone to rip my whole book off and repackage it for sale or put it up for free at a publically accessable site.

(snip)

Heh. Joe Browning pretty much said what I wanted to say.

 

[philreed]

Why shouldn't people be able to say, "if you didn't want it to be redistributed, why did you make it open?" The purpose of making content open is to make it redistributable.

Again. It is not that I don't want the OGC I create to be used. It's that I want it to be used responsibly.

Anyone watching but not participating that understands what I mean -- yes, you! -- please post. My hand is getting tired.

 

[jgbrowning]

My hand is getting tired.

Try using both to type. It really improves productivity. I imagine you could put out twice your normal number of products if you typed with both hands.

joe b.

 

[BryonD]

I'm serious. Although I don't like it even though I have agreed to the possiblity, ripping OGC wholesale and putting it up for free is legal.

Cool. Then you and I agree.
Obviously I don't share your personal motivation.
But I see that you are able to separate that from an emotional response to the situation.
I REALLY respect that.
So much so that I just bought Beast Builder.

The end bit is my personal opinion, not legal opinon.

joe b.

Of course. Me too.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

For me it isn't at all about the legality. It's about respect and responsibility.

I am not at all denying that an OGL Wiki, if the license was followed correctly, would be perfectly legal. I am saying that it would be disrespectful to the creators and publishers involved and an irresponsible use of the OGL.

Okay, boiling it down to this, I just disagree. The creators and publishers have given permission to use their work in this manner. Whether it would be advisable or responsible to do so is another issue. As others have pointed out, it would probably cause a decrease in the quality and quantity of d20 material. It simply for reasons of the logistics of maintaining it and the consequences of its existence would not be a good idea to create a d20 wiki. But it wouldn't be an affront to the publishers that created the open content used. If they take offence, they didn't understand the agreement that the OGL demands of them.