OGC Wiki?

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

I think I should clarify, since I hold a contrary position here. Copyright is a good thing. People should have control over their intellectual property, or else they can't make a living at being creative. Information should not be free unless the author intends it to be free. However, the act of publishing a document that has a license that says "this information is free, so long as you abide by the terms of the license," means that the author intends it to be free. At that point, yeah, I think it should be free.

 

[Yair]

I think a problem with the OGL is that WotC didn't specify that a certain percentage of the OGC in a product must be original to that product and released as OGC. If something as simple as this was a part of the OGL I think a lot of the problems would vanish -- then anyone releasing existing OGC for free would also be releasing new OGC, of their own creation, for free.

Would you consider Monster Geographica a non-legit product? It's a collection of monsters from various OGC sources around (say) the Underdark theme, revised to 3.5e and slightly modified. There is also some original content, let's assume it doesn't meet the required amount.
I consider MG:U one of my best purchases. I have no problem whatsoever with derivative, even unimaginative, works. If it's useful for my games, all is good.

I percieve the OGL's main problem as not stating sufficiently clearly its viral qualities (i.e. what must be OGC), and what counts as "clearly designated" declarations and what doesn't.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

We can argue about "intent" all day long, and until someone from Wizards of the Coast or Ryan Dancey comes in here and says explicitly, "this is what we intended," we're not going to get anywhere on this. Mind you, I'm not arguing that folks who are releasing other people's OGC for free are violating the OGL (unless of course they are violating it, which happens); it is, as I said, completely within the bounds of the license. And I think you miss the point when you argue this way:

Or maybe I'm just rubbed the wrong way by the notion that there's some kind of special privilege that game publishers are supposed to have that us proles don't have, that makes it okay for other publishers to freely plagiarize each others' work with impunity but not okay for Buddy Whatshisname to work up his own stuff to sell for a buck, with the inclusion of some neat stuff he saw in this or that OGL sourcebook, or just to put on his website. If both of these parties are operating by the rules of the OGL, as far as I'm concerned they're operating under its intent.

It's perfectly fine for Buddy Whatshisname to work up his own stuff to sell, and it's fine for him to put up a website, and he can use OGC per the terms in the OGL; in neither case is it plagiarism. I've not said otherwise. As for framing it as a case of the proletarian gamers and some group of bourgeois publishers, I think that's a little bit unfair. As I see it, if the license is intended for collaboration and not the dissemination of gaming material (and part of the initial purpose was, IIRC what Ryan Dancey has said, to get other companies publishing things that WotC did not find terrifically profitable, such as adventures, which'd fall under collaboration), then someone posting an OGC wiki or some sort of OGC clearing house and publishing the material and work of a bunch of publishers for free is probably violating the spirit of the license, even if not the written rule.

My opinion.

Nick

 

[jezter6]

Unfortunately, a sizable number of people feel that "information should be free." So while a number of us want to protect OGC, by making sure that it is used responsibly, another group wants all of the OGC to be completely free to the world.

I doubt if the two parties will ever agree on the right and wrong way to use the OGL.

Consider me of the 'information for free' contingent. Personally, it's just some added rules to a game that is complete already. You're adding some new bits, but really...is 17 new magical pipe cleaners THAT innovative that we should be paying for it? Sure, if it's included in a book of 1000 other pieces of equipment at a reasonable cost...I can see it.

My personal problem is that it's so easy to be a publisher, every Average joe could do it, and a LARGE portion of average joes DO do it. Too many fisherman, really small pond. I'll do my best not to offend anyone personally, but this is my blanket generalization of the industry:

Some people put out neat stuff. Some people don't. The people who don't are taking sales dollars from those who do. Therefore, to make the same money they made last year, they need to find new ways of doing biz that gains a better profit margin. Now, those that have been in the business are trying to stay in business, but they're also getting all elitist. Now they consider the whole product (even the OGC) their identity. Even though you can freely use the OGC, nobody wants it to be done unless it's in a manner the original writer approves of. Sorry, it's not your rules...it's OPEN. Open means we can do what we want with it. Light it on fire in the back yard. Flush it down the toilet like the crap it sometimes is. Or even republish it. WotC put out their OGC free. They didn't hide it behind some area where you have to be a publisher first to be allowed to access it, they give it away. We see WotC do it, so therefore many of us think that open content should be available to the public. Personally, if publishers put out pure text files of just the open content with the PDF they bought, I doubt you'd see massive loss of sales on it because it's just text. And you're worried someone will take it and resell it and take your money. Guess what, it doesn't matter...you'll still make your money.

WotC put out their OGC for FREE. OPEN to the PUBLIC. FRICKIN FREE. Yet the license allows people to copy it and repackage it for profit (and people DID), and guess what...people BOUGHT it. They spent the money, you made the profit...on selling stuff that was free. They even do it out in L.A. with oxygen.

Personally, I think most publishers need to lighten up and go back to doing business. People still are going to buy your products because they like to buy products. Gamers spend willy nilly with their money, even if they come here and post about the high price of products and how they don't like it. Game material is like crack in that manner.

 

[philreed]

Leaving it like it is, you're pretty much forced into either "all game mechanics (including item values & modifiers to dice rolls) are OGC, all other text is closed content" or "all descriptive text is closed content, all game mechanics are open content", since both are intermingled in the item description.

It's done this way to make the DM's job of describing the item, when it's found, easier. If all of the actual descriptive and history of the item was under one block it wouldn't be as immediately useable. (IMO)

It's a very cool item, btw. Is it from an upcoming product, or an existing one?

Thank you. It's from A Dozen Distinctive Articles of Clothing.

 

[jgbrowning]

I think I should clarify, since I hold a contrary position here. Copyright is a good thing. People should have control over their intellectual property, or else they can't make a living at being creative. Information should not be free unless the author intends it to be free. However, the act of publishing a document that has a license that says "this information is free, so long as you abide by the terms of the license," means that the author intends it to be free. At that point, yeah, I think it should be free.

I think an arguement assuming using the OGL as meaning "the author intends his stuff to be free" isn't supportable simply by the fact that the only way to get the material to begin with is by paying for it.

If the author intended the product to be free, it would be free. If it is being sold, it is not intended to be free, no matter the various possibilities implied in a license.

joe b.

 

[BryonD]

While it is legally allowable, it is morally wrong to do such a thing.

In your opinion, why is the OGL set up to clearly permit morally wrong activity?

While I agree 100% with publishers statements about how how a wiki would impact them and what there reposnse would be, I find claims that it is morally wrong to be pretty shallow. It doesn't have anything to do with "all information is free". It has everything to do with this specific information has been voluntarily declared open and freely useable in any manner that anyone wants so long as they comply with the OGL.

If you don't like it, that is fine. But that doesn't even begin to touch on making it immoral. If you don't want your stuff to be available for free, don't make OGC. You're going to lose some built in market if you do that. It is a choice you have to make.

Anyway, the OGL was not made to encourage 3rd party publishers to build off of each other. That is a secondary benefit and a selling point, no doubt. But that isn't the purpose that made it happen. It was made to cultivate the market for selling D&D products from WotC. A wiki would probably play directly into that goal.

I don't want to see a wiki because it would have a negative impact on new product for my games.

But there would be nothing at all immoral about it.

Just as the fans, 2nd tier re-publishers MUST comply fully with the OGL, so must the original publishers. If someone release OGC and then tries to pressure other into not beign allowed their rights under the OGL, that comes cloer to being immoral than freely releasing OGC in an OGL-compliant manner.

It is a two way street with cost and value both.

 

[philreed]

Would you consider Monster Geographica a non-legit product?

Absolutely not. There was a lot more work put into that product than just "here's a bunch of existing OGC!" Also, they didn't just collect everything and release it online for free -- they actually place a value on both the OGC they built from and the work they put into the project.

I think this sort of work, that actually builds on existing material, is what the OGL was written for.

 

[Nellisir]

The spirit of the license is not for people to take the work one person has done in an attempt to make money, and then give it away for free.

Wait...so "[t]he spirit of the license is to take the work one person has done in an attempt to make money, and then..." sell it without giving that person a dime?

I don't think publishers really object to "free" OGC. I think they object to uncontrolled distribution of OGC. Money is simply the most common form of control.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I think a problem with the OGL is that WotC didn't specify that a certain percentage of the OGC in a product must be original to that product and released as OGC. If something as simple as this was a part of the OGL I think a lot of the problems would vanish -- then anyone releasing existing OGC for free would also be releasing new OGC, of their own creation, for free.

This would be a very satisfactory solution. If I were using someone else's OGC, I'd certainly be using it in addition to my own contributions. Not because to do otherwise would be morally wrong, but because to do otherwise would be impolite, and a waste of my effort, since there's no chance that I'd make any money at it, and I have better things to do with my time than not make money.