OGC Wiki?

[BryonD]

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.

True.

But any OGC is still voluntarily established as OPEN and the author's intent is secondary and moot. If the author really understands what they have done, then they underatnd that they have elected to make it free and they simply intend to try to sell it despite that. If they don't understand, then that is their fault.

 

[jezter6]

So you're telling me that I should stop writing the types of products people want me to write? (Note: I don't believe that's at all what you're saying, I'm just making a point.)

I think the problem boils down to legal use vs. responsible use and, as I said earlier, I don't think the two sides will ever agree on this point.

Sure. Stop writing books with only 17 items in it. People may want it, but if you're THAT worried about the compilation, you are the only one that can decide if you'll make your minimum profit before it gets disseminated for free. If you don't meet that goal, don't write the product.

As much as you're saying that 'people want you to write it,' that's NOT what your business model is. Your business is in it to MAKE MONEY from those who want your work. If it wasn't, then write the book for nothing. You won't do that, because you're in a business to make money. You make a nice statement about people wanting you to write, and you're being the good guy buy doing it, but again....if you aren't getting anything out of it...you're not doing it. Sadly, many gamers see a line like that and think how great it is that you're really doing it for them, when it's really just a good PR statement. (No offense intended, honestly, I'm just pointing out basic economics to some who may not realize it).

 

[jezter6]

Phil, what do you have to say about one of my above solutions about opening up more in return for an inline plug when inserting ogc?

 

[Nellisir]

I'm not sure that's what's being argued here. From what I understand, the intent of the OGL is to open up material for publishers to use and encourage some forms of collaboration, not to create a bunch of freely distributable game material for fans. It can do that, too, but I'm not sure that was ever the primary intent.

If the WotC lawyers didn't realize the implications, though, then they're .... not that smart. I realized them the first time I read it, and I'm not a lawyer. So, while it might not have been the primary intent, I think it was a secondary one.

The primary intent was, and is, to support the D&D brand's market position with as little cost to WotC as possible. I suspect it's doing -that- just fine.

 

[philreed]

You're adding some new bits, but really...is 17 new magical pipe cleaners THAT innovative that we should be paying for it?

Innovation isn't the key, here, it's value. If you see no value in it when it's sold as a product how does it suddenly become valuable to you when it's free? The product has value, maybe your sense of the product's value is lower than the publisher's, but by dumping it online for free it loses its value. And if enough people feel as you do, that the product's price exceeds its actual value, then the market will force the publisher to change his pricing and/or product strategy.

 

[GMSkarka]

Phil, for what it's worth, you know that I completely agree with and share your position.

The reason I don't participate in these threads is because it's just the same arguments about how the material should be free, and how if we didn't want it to be free, we shouldn't have used the OGL, etc. etc., from the same people, pretty much none of whom have the slightest idea of how the license was intended and was communicated to publishers from the beginning.

There is no way to convince them, so I don't bother. My blood pressure thanks me.

 

[philreed]

Phil, what do you have to say about one of my above solutions about opening up more in return for an inline plug when inserting ogc?

I think I'd want to see a few years of people using the OGL, as it currently exists, correctly before I'd be open to trying something like that. It's definitely a good idea but a large number of people have exhibited (again and again) that they either don't understand the OGL or feel they can break it as often as they wish. Adding more rules to a license that's already being misused wouldn't help the problem.

 

[Nellisir]

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)

Ah, good point. Personally, I'd go with something like "product item name PI, proper names of all people, characters, events, and locations closed (or PI), all else OGC", but that doesn't wall off the description, it just puts holes in it.

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

No problem. I'll check it out.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

If the WotC lawyers didn't realize the implications, though, then they're .... not that smart. I realized them the first time I read it, and I'm not a lawyer. So, while it might not have been the primary intent, I think it was a secondary one.

I can't argue with you there, although I'd guess that what happened was that they didn't expect people to propose large scale projects like OGC wikis.

Actually, more likely, too — it occurs to me that, since all their OGC is in the license and everything else they've published is only released according to their own marketing plans and ideas, they probably aren't too concerned. The vast majority of WotC's IP doesn't fall under the OGC, and the stuff that did and that they found valuable (mind flayers, for one), they pulled out of it.

Nick

 

[jgbrowning]

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.

I agree. However here's a point to consider.

I want other people to be able to use my stuff in their books, but I don't want someone to rip my whole book off and repackage it for sale or put it up for free at a publically accessable site.

My choice as a publisher, and I believe almost every publisher who uses the OGL and puts out a lot of material is this—

1. Be mean to the majority of people (publishers, customers who want more OGC to support their hobby) by having a vicious IP claim and absolutely minimum OGC declaration. This mean I'm being, effectively, a "leech" publisher by using other's free stuff (the SRD) to make money while trying to make sure no one else can really use my stuff.

2. Be open in my declarations and run the risk of having my work devalued by being put up for free, but add to the community benfit for everyone using/playing the OGL/OGL games. In otherwords, be nice to those to made material I could use and be nice to those who may want to use my material in the future

Most publishers chose #2 right now simply because there isn't anything really making being #2 less fiscally viable than being #1. As soon as being a #2 publisher means that your stuff gets sucked up and released for free, almost all publishers will become #1 publishers. This means that, basically, everyone gets to be a jerk.

I don't like that, I that's why I don't support a massive public source of OGC. It will result in #1 style publishing more than #2.

And I like being nice to others and being treated nicely by others.

It's not immoral, but it is irresponsible because by using the OGL to it's "full extent" you're basically guaranteeing that there's going to be much less OGC in the future.

joe b.