OGC Wiki?

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Right. And you did so willingly and with knowledge of the consequences of your actions. If you have given permission for the material to be used in a particular way, and it gets used in this way, you have no cause for complaint. You arranged for that situation to come to pass. As they say, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones. Sure, democracy has its bad points, but one would hardly call supporters of democracy immoral because of that.

The OGL is the best system we have for this sort of distribution. You might not like all the consequences of the license, but they were there before you started publishing (except, perhaps, for the mind flayer bits). Presumably, you saw the flaws and decided to publish under the OGL anyway. In that case, you agreed to a certain flawed set of rules and have no right to call foul on people who are also playing by the same flawed set of rules. Reserve the venom for people who break the rules, like the publisher who failed to credit Mr. Reed.

 

[Crothian]

Fair enough, Yair. I think it is all about ressource management, even though no one is in charge of it.

Plainly said, I don't have the time and do my part for the d20 community, and I think most of us here do their part as well. So it takes just one guy to do the deed. Who will? Not I. But somebody will, I'm sure of it.

There is also the chance that it could easily get sabotaged and forced to be taken down. It doesn't take much for someoing to mess up the OGL declorations of a few entries or just put in false info to get the things taken down. There are thousands of d20 books with all sorts of open content in them, and its impossible for most people to even be aware if its done right.

 

[philreed]

I do not understand publihsers who object to this. If you don't want it to happen, then use a different license or publish closed material. No direspect meant here, just trying to wrap my head around the argument.

Basically I can choose to be extremely restrictive with OGC or open with OGC. I choose to be open, and have made clear that I expect people to act responsibly with that OGC. I am not at all saying that someone couldn't take any amount of OGC and release it online for free, just that I feel that would be irresponsible.

I can also choose to include special instructions on how to contact me to request to use closed material (which I have done a few times) but that's frustrating for everyone involved.

I'm trusting the community to treat OGC with respect. Obviously, I'm an idiot.

 

[jezter6]

...

 

[jezter6]

I'm trusting the community to treat OGC with respect. Obviously, I'm an idiot.

You trusted the wrong group of people. We want, want, want, free, free, free...yet we'll blow $100 on a dungeon then come here and complain about it.

Gamers are odd folks.

 

[Yair]

Phil,
I honestly have never understood this. I have done OGL on three of my books. I EXPECT that people will reprint it (entirely or in parts) and it is part of my plan. I do not understand publihsers who object to this. If you don't want it to happen, then use a different license or publish closed material. No direspect meant here, just trying to wrap my head around the argument.

Bill

While I agree in principle that using a closed license or publishing some closed content would be wiser, that doesn't mean I would want to take advantage of a publisher's... ehm... like of foresight against them. I could, yes, but I wouldn't want to. No more than I would like to punish someone for inadvetedly publishing material as OGC in an "oops" case.
Now, that only goes so far. I wouldn't publish the Tome of Horrors extract the day after it was released. I might not be opposed to publishing it in a few months, perhaps under some greater project. It's very liquid. But the publisher's wishes do carry weight with me even if they are not backed up by laws to uphold them.

 

[jgbrowning]

Right. And you did so willingly and with knowledge of the consequences of your actions. If you have given permission for the material to be used in a particular way, and it gets used in this way, you have no cause for complaint.

Just because I agree doesn't mean I give away my right to complain. I agreed with certain parts and disagreed with others. Unfortunately that means, legally, I agree with them all. However, legally agreeing to something doesn't mean I support that something 100%.

As they say, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones. Sure, democracy has its bad points, but one would hardly call supporters of democracy immoral because of that.

Yep. I "voted" for the OGL. That doesn't mean I support all the possible outcomes of the license without right to complain. It just means I can't *sue* someone I disagree with.

In that case, you agreed to a certain flawed set of rules and have no right to call foul on people who are also playing by the same flawed set of rules. Reserve the venom for people who break the rules, like the publisher who failed to credit Mr. Reed.

I don't have any venom for anyone. And I even won't have venom once someone rips all my OGC to make a quick buck or to put it up for free so other people can not pay me for my work. I won't have any venom. What I *will* have is a lot less OGC in the future. It's that point I'm trying to make to those who believe that open means "the author intends his products to be free."

I don't intend my products to be free, I intend them to be open. If they become free they will do so against my express wishes as the OGL I agreed to is only concerned with the "opening" of material, not the monatary value of the material. The only products I intend to be free are those I make free of purchasing price.

However regardless of my opinions/desires, if done according to the license, they will become free in a legal manner.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

So much so that I just bought Beast Builder.

I'm sure you'll notice that Beast Builder is 224 pages. All of the text is open content. I really believe in the OGL and I believe in making things as open as possible.

joe b.

 

[HinterWelt]

Basically I can choose to be extremely restrictive with OGC or open with OGC. I choose to be open, and have made clear that I expect people to act responsibly with that OGC. I am not at all saying that someone couldn't take any amount of OGC and release it online for free, just that I feel that would be irresponsible.

I can also choose to include special instructions on how to contact me to request to use closed material (which I have done a few times) but that's frustrating for everyone involved.

I'm trusting the community to treat OGC with respect. Obviously, I'm an idiot.

Phil,
I would not call you an idiot in any manner. To be honest, I respect your stand on this subject, I just have never fully understood it. I apporach the OGL as a means to an end. I use on the SRD. I appreciate that the spirit of the OGL, at least on the surface, was for reuse and improvement of existing OGL to make the materail better with each iteration. I could live with people reprinting the three books I have written. I don't know how well they would sell but it was a price for allowing open content. I am not saying you should do a dance but it is to be planned for, understood, and if you dislike that route, use a different license or make your own.

Nothing but respect for you Phil,
Bill

 

[RangerWickett]

Originally Posted by philreed
So you're saying that you do not respect the work of those producing OGC and feel their work has no value and should be online for free? Because -- to me -- that's what it feels like you are saying.

Phil,
I honestly have never understood this. I have done OGL on three of my books. I EXPECT that people will reprint it (entirely or in parts) and it is part of my plan. I do not understand publihsers who object to this. If you don't want it to happen, then use a different license or publish closed material. No direspect meant here, just trying to wrap my head around the argument.

Bill

The argument is that reusing OGC is fine. You are developing intellectually upon that which has been put out for that purpose.

Giving away OGC is what the problem is. If you simply copy something and give it away for free, you are not contributing to the discourse of game design. All you're doing is making the production of d20 game material no longer a viable business strategy.

I don't think any of the publishers are objecting to people using the OGC they create. What we're opposed to is the idea that people might go against what we perceive is the spirit of the OGL. We think the spirit of the OGL is to help people use Open Content in their products, to add value to the d20 game system. It is against that spirit to simply give away Open Content that someone else is trying to make money on.

It's like this:

"Hertz, I'd like to rent a car."

"Okay."

"Oh, now that I have your car, I'm going to give it away."

"Darn."

And for the record, I realize it's a flawed analogy. But 'darn' is fun to say, especially if you imagine a mopey Hertz clerk. *grin*