OGC Wiki?

[philreed]

And that is all beside the point because my preference is not relevant to what some brand new publisher is 100% allowed to start doing tomorrow within the OGL.

As a community, though, we can guide behaviour and usage of the OGL. An OGL Wiki -- regularly updated, packed with tons of existing material, and heavily used by gamers -- would send out the signal that this sort of behavior is approved by the community.

Kind of like how allowing people to use illegal PDFs at your game table approves that sort of behavior.

 

[BryonD]

Sometimes it is not necessarily the legality of using the OGC content but the business ethics behind it.

so?

You can add "and FATDRAGONGAMES thinks it is not ethical" to everything I posted. It doesn't change the issue.

 

[Zelgar]

Each entry would need it's own Section 15.

Wouldn't it be easier to have a separate Section 15 for each source, therefore everything (e.g., class, PC, feat, spell, item) that would be from the source would have the same link?

Zelgar

 

[philreed]

Wouldn't it be easier to have a separate Section 15 for each source, therefore everything (e.g., class, PC, feat, spell, item) that would be from the source would have the same link?

Zelgar

Possibly. I think it would be easier to have a Section 15 with each entry.

One Section 15 for the entire site would make the entire site essentially unusable -- imagine buying a 64-page book with a 20-page Section 15.

 

[Pinotage]

No reader is going to know where it comes from, which is why it WILL stop sales. At least if a reader would know where it came from, he would have the option of going to the source.

Possibly. Thanks. Phil mentioned each entry would require its own section 15, so that answer's my question.

Pinotage

 

[philreed]

Possibly. Thanks. Phil mentioned each entry would require its own section 15, so that answer's my question.

Pinotage

It could legally be done with one Section 15 for the entire site but I think that would make the site unusable.

 

[BryonD]

As a community, though, we can guide behaviour and usage of the OGL. An OGL Wiki -- regularly updated, packed with tons of existing material, and heavily used by gamers -- would send out the signal that this sort of behavior is approved by the community.

Kind of like how allowing people to use illegal PDFs at your game table approves that sort of behavior.

Agreed.

Of course if it was heavily used then the signal of approval would be correct.

I'm certainly not asking you to approve of any of this. But you have endorsed the possibilty when you put the OGL on a product.

I think you are dodging my cipple OGC / bogus IP question.

 

[philreed]

I think you are dodging my cipple OGC / bogus IP question.

Not dodging, thinking through.

 

[Pinotage]

It could legally be done with one Section 15 for the entire site but I think that would make the site unusable.

Ah. OK. Thanks. One could argue the result of that both ways, I suppose. With one section 15, as Yair points out if would decrease sales since there's no direct link to source, but on the other hand, no direct link to source could mean that the gamer who actually buys products would see something he liked in the wiki and then search for products that expanded on that idea, hence increasing sales. I think, however, that there are more gamers in the first instance that haven't even heard of most pdf publishers that would just use the wiki as a source of material.

Pinotage

 

[jezter6]

Emphasis mine.

This is, IMHO, the root of the problem. It's not the fact that the material is, or isn't, OGC, it's the fact that the creators of an OGC Wiki would be making the material available for free. Material that other people, for better of worse, have paid for. As I said before, just because the material is designated OGC doesn't make is free.

If Publisher A wrote Book 1, selling for $5, and Publisher B took the OGC material and put it into Book 2 (without new OGC content) and gave it away, would that be within the the OGL?

This publisher versus non-publisher thing is just clouding the issue (I'm not a publisher - I'm not even a writer (I've got one published credit to my name and that's for, mainly, fluff (98% fluff, 2% crunch!)).

Agreed. The OP was talking about a free resource, which sparked this debate. That's also where i draw the line between publisher and non-publisher. If you're not doing this as a business, then you're not a publisher, you're a hobbyist. Now, there are grey areas in that...I am fully aware...but when *I* talk about the difference between pub/non-pub, that's what I use to make my distinction.

I'm very confused that Phil would rather someone rip his OGC and make money off it than someone who just puts it out there for free...I'd rather nobody make money of my stuff but me, at least when presented in large quantities. I would have no problem someone using a few bits here and there, but when you take my entire product, then sell it as the same thing, I would have a problem with that MORE than the guy who just puts it out for everyone.

And I don't think that OGC must be free because it's open. I think that anyone has the right to MAKE it free if they so choose, because they have that option granted by the OGL. Morality aside, I'm very surprised that nobody has done this yet. I've thought about it myself but ditched due to lack of time (read: too lazy to do the work).

I do support the possibility of OGC being free much like the way open source and linux works. You can get it all free, if you want to go to the store and buy it...all the more power to you. Guys who write awesome programs and open the source really DO do it for the love of the game. All they want is a little credit line that says that they did it.

Personally, I think one of my earlier suggestions would be the best way to approach OGC in that you HAVE to reference where it comes from right in the product. What is sad to me is the fact that publishers keep such tight knits on the products, that you can't even VOLUNTARILY say "I got this from 13 magical pipe cleaners by Ronin Arts." I am not allowed to say where I got it, the source is just a line in sec 15 that says some of my work may have been taken from that, or even derived from that, I just can't tell you what parts are derived from that, even though you might find that book useful because my stuff is really based ON that book.

Plus, once you cite something like A&A, your section 15 just goes right down the crapper because you have 100 or more books listed in it.

Question to publishers in the thread:
If I specifically asked to say "This came from XXX by Company YYY" to give you a big plug, would you let me do it? (By "I" and "me" I really mean...any other publisher, as I am not one)