OGC Wiki?

[philreed]

I cannot believe I read this whole thred.

Thank you for reading it before getting involved.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, do I get points for reading "almost" all the thread?

On a side note, I wonder what the reaction over at WOTC is over the Hypertext SRD posting all of the OGC from the Unearthed Arcana? I haven't heard anything. Has anyone else heard any reaction?

 

[philreed]

On a side note, I wonder what the reaction over at WOTC is over the Hypertext SRD posting all of the OGC from the Unearthed Arcana? I haven't heard anything. Has anyone else heard any reaction?

ALERT: Speculation follows.

I suspect there are two camps within WotC when it comes to the OGL. My feelings would be that the anti-OGL camp has support within Hasbro and every time the OGL is used in a manner that looks as if it could have a negative impact on sales the chances of 4e following the OGL decrease.

So I suspect that all of the OGC from UA being online is actually harming the future of D&D's connection to the OGL.

 

[Flyspeck23]

ALERT: Speculation follows.

I suspect there are two camps within WotC when it comes to the OGL. My feelings would be that the anti-OGL camp has support within Hasbro and every time the OGL is used in a manner that looks as if it could have a negative impact on sales the chances of 4e following the OGL decrease.

So I suspect that all of the OGC from UA being online is actually harming the future of D&D's connection to the OGL.

Most likely. IIRC WotC made it clear that UA was an experiment - seeing what happens when they declare new material (non-SRD) open. Now the whole book (or 98% of it) is available online. Guess that'll teach WotC not to open their content again.

UA was the last OGC book by WotC, of that I'm sure.

I can't think of any publisher not going a similar road (although only WotC can close a whole book) if such a thing should happen to them.

From what I've read, the publishers seem to have no problem with you creating something from their open game content and posting that creation for free.
(Building = good)

Its the posting of huge sections of OGC in a repository that they are uncomfortable with.
(Xeroxing tons of stuff = bad)

Loosely translated.

QFT

 

[philreed]

Most likely. IIRC WotC made it clear that UA was an experiment - seeing what happens when they declare new material (non-SRD) open. Now the whole book (or 98% of it) is available online. Guess that'll teach WotC not to open their content again.

UA was the last OGC book by WotC, of that I'm sure.

There might just be a lesson there.

 

[Pramas]

ALERT: Speculation follows.

I suspect there are two camps within WotC when it comes to the OGL. My feelings would be that the anti-OGL camp has support within Hasbro and every time the OGL is used in a manner that looks as if it could have a negative impact on sales the chances of 4e following the OGL decrease.

My speculation is that all decisions regarding the D&D game and the OGL are internal to WotC. I sincerely doubt anyone at Hasbro has the time or inclination to pay attention to what is a very small part of their larger business, with the exception of licensing the D&D brand for things like computer games. People like to think that evil Hasbro suits are making all these decisions. I suspect they are coming from WotC itself.

 

[Conaill]

A certain code monkey recently asked me if he could create an online character generator for Grim Tales characters. I released to him all of the electronic files he needs to do it, on the condition that when he is finished, he also post those files online into a "GT Character Creation SRD."

Wulf - I'd love it if you could expand on this a little. What is your reasoning behind releasing some of your OGC for free in this manner, and how do you see it different than what people here have been proposing.

It seems to me that it *is* possible to release some OGC for free in a way that is beneficial to the individual publisher, as well as to the community as a whole. After all, that's what WotC did with the original SRD, and it seems to have worked for them. (Although I'm sure there is some faction at WotC and possibly at Hasbro that is not convinced of this.)

Could we design a free OGC repository - and a set of policies for how to manage that repository and its content - that would serve those goals? So far, I haven't really seen anyone try to address these questions directly.

 

[KaosDevice]

My speculation is that all decisions regarding the D&D game and the OGL are internal to WotC. I sincerely doubt anyone at Hasbro has the time or inclination to pay attention to what is a very small part of their larger business, with the exception of licensing the D&D brand for things like computer games. People like to think that evil Hasbro suits are making all these decisions. I suspect they are coming from WotC itself.

I would tend to agree with this. But I think there is probably at least one person internal to either WOTC or Hasbro that is in charge of oversite for WOTC legal concerns in order to ensure they match with the overall Hasbro legal paradigm. That seems like pretty standard corp-logic to me. Whether or not they are 'evil' I leave up to the individual.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Wulf - I'd love it if you could expand on this a little. What is your reasoning behind releasing some of your OGC for free in this manner, and how do you see it different than what people here have been proposing.

I'm not releasing everything, I'm releasing it in a responsible manner to a responsible party, and it's not going to threaten my livelihood.

That's obviously very different from someone else taking (for example) A Magical Medieval Society and reposting it in its entirety, without the knowledge of, or even against the express wishes of, Expeditious Retreat Press.

It seems to me that it *is* possible to release some OGC for free in a way that is beneficial to the individual publisher, as well as to the community as a whole.

Of course it is. Publishers release their content for free all the time.

Publishers-- even WOTC-- don't expect that their OPEN content will be immediately re-released for FREE.

Joseph doesn't seem to have had much success in making folks here understand the difference between OPEN and FREE.

 

[philreed]

Joseph doesn't seem to have had much success in making folks here understand the difference between OPEN and FREE.

Which is pretty frustrating, in my opinion, since he's been very clear.

It may also just be that they don't care.