philreed said:
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.
Of course I'm not saying that. Their work must have value or else nobody would want to purchase it in the first place, or (more tellingly) use it in another publication. My respect for their work, if I were to publish something including it, would equal my respect for the work of scientists whose work I respect and make use of in my own work, which is to say I would include appropriate citation.
I think that Monte Cook's Best of d20 is a fabulous book because it highlights some of the best OGC out there, and directs attention toward those publishers using Mr. Cook's own name as a banner to draw that attention. The work they did deserves respect. Now, I could buy the Best of d20 and leave it at that, never look at the rest of that publisher's work, open or closed content, and I would think that it would be pretty crazy to call me or Mr. Cook immoral over that situation. But if I went and bought something from one of those publishers, now that I know the quality work they produce, I would expect to get more than just a text document of open game content.
I would expect to get a publication that includes both open content and closed content. Things like illustrations, background, characterizations, along with the standard feats, spells, etc. Maybe it'll even be on real paper. But I'm not just buying the text. I'm buying a product. There are two reasons why I pay for the work. First, to reward their efforts and encourage more products I might like. Second, to pay for the actual product including illustrations and layout, salaries that went into making it, etc.
My impression of open content is that it fulfills two roles:
1. It provides the baseline (SRD) for publishers to create products that are compatible with one another. This requires no open content beyond the SRD.
2. It allows publishers to add their ideas to the community pot, with the notion that if those ideas are better than the baseline, maybe someday they'll displace the SRD rules as "the way the game is played", or at least become popular variations. I remember hearing something quite like this stated as part of the original intent of the OGL (for the edification of GMSkarka).
This second part is purely optional, and if you want to support it, you have to be comfortable with losing control over your ideas, because that's what you agree to by creating open content. It doesn't make your ideas any less valuable to players, only less valuable as monopolized commodities.
So in response to your question, no, I'm not saying I have no respect for their work. But I do think that if they deliberately relinquish control over their intellectual property, they should think about why they're doing it and what effect it will have on their ability to sell it. It's no longer entirely theirs, and they lose a lot of say in what happens to it. But they knew that going into the business.
And while I'm at it, what's the difference between:
1. Mr. A publishes 25% open content book X. Mr. B transcribes open content from book X and puts it on internet for free. Mr. A makes no money from this arrangement.
2. Mr. A publishes 25% open content book X. Mr. C transcribes open content from book X and sells it as a PDF, making a profit. Mr. A makes no money from this arrangement.
You seem to be saying that 2 is okay, but 1 isn't. That seems odd to me. I would have thought you'd have a bigger beef with Mr. C, who makes money on Mr. A's work than with Mr. B, who doesn't. In the latter case, people have to pay for the content, but they're paying Mr. C, not Mr. A. Why should Mr. A care whether Mr. C is getting paid?
