OGC Wiki?

[Yair]

Not at all - the stuff would still be OGC, so we'd be legally entitled to do such a thing, we'd just be in murky moral water.

Murky legal waters too. Take for example the token mechanics of Iron Heroes. Monte Cook clearly maintains he has the right to reserve them as closed content even though they interact heavily with clearly SRD (and derived) mechanics. Others claim that they Use the SRD (and other OGC), and hence must be OGC, and indeed are OGC as they are covered by his blanket "... and everything else that must be OGC" statement in his designation. Regardless of who is right, the issue is by no means clear and cut and defintiely murky.

Mmm, I know you shouldn't take anything for granted, but has any d20 publisher in the last five years been sued? I'm sure even the most tyrannical and protective of publishers would accept a removal of the contencious (Sp?) material as sufficient.

Fair enough. They MUST allow you to cure a breach by the terms of the OGL.
That said, especially when putting yourself in an adverserial position as working against the publisher's wishes, I am not at all certain that relying on not being sued is a good strategy.

Yeah, I haven't really thought that far forward. Funds = $0.00, so any advice would be appreciated. My only thought is Wikispaces, since it's free and (somewhat) intuitive.

Unacceptable. Read the fineprint.

Contributions to www.wikispaces.com are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 License.

You cannot publish with Wikispaces as it relies on a license that is incompatible with the OGL. Nearly any license is, you need a place that doesn't adhere to any particular license.
Frankly, your lack of attention to legal details is worrying for a project that seems to hinge on legalities.

It MAY be possible to convince WikiCities to provide hosting. They use the GNU FDL license, but have shown willingness to allow hosting wikis with other open licenses. I doubt they would like to host such a contested wiki, however. EDIT: On second look, I think WikiCities would not allow member-only editing, which is vital to the programme.
Pbwiki.com provides un-licensed hosting for free, but the program lacks features that I think will be crucial to this wiki to function properly. You can check it out in my sig, I use it for the Ars Magica wiki I opened.

You get what you pay for. I doubt if you could find a free wiki hosting service that will serve your needs. As I said, a privately funded server with MediaWiki installed is probably the best solution.

 

[Nellisir]

As I said, a privately funded server with MediaWiki installed is probably the best solution.

And just for kicks, what do servers & associated costs run these days?

Nell.

 

[dpmcalister]

And just for kicks, what do servers & associated costs run these days?

I pay £50.20 a year (around $87.30) for php shared-hosting (for Modus Operandi). That includes 350MB of space and 10GB of traffic a month - among a lot of other features.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Because, for me, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. I have personal standards and values that I will not sacrifice, no matter how "legal" I would be.

Example: Mastering Iron Heroes includes a very cool set of rules on zones. I'd like to do something with those but the OGC declaration does not open those rules. Now many have argued that they fall under the "based on SRD" clause and are free to use. I will not, though, because it is obvious to me that Monte Cook did not intend them to be open or available to others.

This is me showing respect to Monte's decision to not open the rules for zones.

It is also showing tacit approval for an OGC declaration that is either incorrect or deliberately crippled.

 

[Yair]

Cross-posting from related thread

I was amused to find an OGC Wiki while strolling the web.
The site does say "DO NOT ADD ANYONE ELSE'S OGC YET!" on the front page, so it is obviously not in working condition. The creator did invest some time into it, but apparently abandoned the project after about a month. It seems the project is meant to house Mearl's work; I suspect he stopped working on it after Mearls did not wildly cooperate.

 

[johnsemlak]

Unfortunately, a sizable number of people feel that "information should be free." .

I have no argument that information should be free.

Entertainment (e.g. RPG products) is another issue, however, and should not necessarily be free, imo.

 

[philreed]

It is also showing tacit approval for an OGC declaration that is either incorrect or deliberately crippled.

Yes, but I'm comfortable doing it this way. While I disagree with the decision to leave those specific rules closed I will honor the decision.

 

[BryonD]

Yes, but I'm comfortable doing it this way. While I disagree with the decision to leave those specific rules closed I will honor the decision.

So publishers abusing the OGL = fine

and

non-publishers using OGL as allowed = bad

?????

 

[jezter6]

So publishers abusing the OGL = fine

and

non-publishers using OGL as allowed = bad

?????

Now, I know 100% that this is not a quote from a publisher. But it just goes to show that we do see some sort of us vs them philosophy when it comes to pubs and non-pubs. Sure, this is probably taken out of context, but it's how we see it come across.

Rangerwickett, you were looking for an example of where this kind of stuff comes from...so here's my 'example' of the day.'

 

[philreed]

So publishers abusing the OGL = fine

and

non-publishers using OGL as allowed = bad

I do not consider restrictive OGC declarations to be a form of abuse. Anyone can write their designation of OGC however they wish.

I'll again say: respect and responsibilty. I don't care if it's a publisher, gamer, or alien, but I do care about how the material is used. A publisher that doesn't responsibly use the OGL, or doesn't respect his fellow publishers, doesn't deserve any special treatment in my eyes.