OGC Wiki?

[philreed]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean that the publisher is in violation of the OGL, and therefore in violation of copyright law?

Yes. But this is nothing new.

 

[jgbrowning]

Is there that much left to do that hasn't already been done 20 times before? There are times when I really think people are writing up stuff JUST to be a publisher and have products out there so they can join the 'BOYS CLUB.' Do we need another variant sorceror? Variant bard?

I don't really think so, but people like new things, even if I'm not the one buying them.

I understand the whole "we don't want it to be free" argument. I am in partial agreement there. What I am against is crippling OGC or obscuring OGC for the sake of trying to protect content which is reqired to be open. And I'm against anyone telling me how I have to use your open content. And that's where my argument lies. Too many people are acting like they have a right to determine my use of content.

I'm completely against crippling OGC as well. But i that's the only type of OGC you'll see if someone really does make a massive site of free OGC material. I think every publisher would start crippling OGC because "it's my living, it's how I make money for food."

joe b.

 

[BryonD]

Ya. Unfortunately, ripping something off wholesale and putting up for free/sale IS and authorized way of using OGC.

Sorry, I sincerly can not tell if you are being sarcastic here or not.

Other than that use, I really don't think publishers have any gripes about "morally" using OGC. Just follow the rules and don't rip it all.

It has already been called immoral in this thread.
And legally and morally the correct last sentence should just be "Just follow the rules." As long as "all" only refers to actual OGC, the last part doesn't fit.
If you want to change the conversation to what you (and I) may prefer, then that is a different matter.

With the caveat above, sure. I really do want[b/] people to use my OGC. I just want them to use it in a way that means I'll be able and willing to make more OGC for them to use.

As do I. But I really don't see letting either side exceed the allowance of the OGL as a good thing.

Heh, human nature, eh? I'm not a big fan of the wiki idea for customers because I really do think it would do more bad than good in the long run for both the customers and the publishers.

Certainly.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Not what I meant. Monte isn't the one saying the material is open, it's other people. According to Monte (I assume, because he was the publisher), the zone rules are not open. Now I happen to feel that they should be (because they're obviously based on the SRD), but if he wants them closed then I can respect that.

But that's an even stronger case than "oops". As far as the publisher is concerned, the material is closed. He might well be right, if the case ever goes to court. The legality of the situation is in question, and I think that invalidates it as an example case for a discussion about open content that was deliberately rendered open. I'm not talking about anything here except content, like your own OGC, which was deliberately rendered open, and which is legally unambiguous with respect to that designation.

 

[philreed]

while you decided to open them but would like to limit this to publishers only.

No, what I've opened is opened. What I am saying is that I would like people to be responsible when using that open material. For example, I feel it would be irresponsible of me to buy the new Tome of Horrors PDF from DTRPG ($10) and then extract all of the OGC and sell it for $5. According to the license this is legal, though.

Maybe it's just that I want people to respect me and my work in the same way that I respect others and their work. Is that wrong of me?

 

[jezter6]

Anyone who wants to discuss this real time, I'm in the #d20modern channel on the EN world chat server (chat.psionics.net).

I personally invite joe and phil (phil even moreso) because I would enjoy discussing this directly with them.

 

[RangerWickett]

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

Laws can allow for immoral things because the people writing the laws feel the benefits of flexible interpretation outweighed the unlikely risks of abuse. For instance, free speech is protected in the United States Bill of Rights. Sure, I can use my protected free speech to tell the whole world that Tom Cruise is having problems in his marriage, or that he's really embarrassed about that new growth he has on his left butt cheek. However, in doing so I'm acting somewhat immorally, taking advantage of someone else. It's a fine line on a slippery slope coated with turtle wax, but it's something to look out for.

I put the majority of my books out as Open Content because I want other publishers to be able to use any rules they like in their own books. I want to foster the gaming industry, so that rather than three people creating redundant rules, they can pick what they think is best and use that.

It is not so much me saying "Everyone use this free" as it is me saying, "Well, US Copyright law is a mudpool of complications and difficulty, so the OGL is a pretty good solution. I just hope people don't sabotage the whole effort of enhancing the art of game creation by using the OGL to hand out all our work to people for free."

Without the OGL, collaborating and using rules created by others would be a pain in the ass, and fraught with risk of getting into legal issues. So yeah, I use the OGL because it's the best thing available. If there was a license that could manage to clearly state the letter of the law to match the spirit of "use this to help produce quality gaming products," I'd use that instead.

 

[Yair]

That's why these threads always start out with someone asking when someone ELSE will start producing this free stuff for them.

That's a brilliant observation.

 

[BryonD]

Not what I meant. Monte isn't the one saying the material is open, it's other people. According to Monte (I assume, because he was the publisher), the zone rules are not open. Now I happen to feel that they should be (because they're obviously based on the SRD), but if he wants them closed then I can respect that.

I haven't purchased this product, so I can not comment on it.

But if any publisher based stuff on the SRD and then tried to call it closed, then they don't have any complaint coming when people turn around and misuse the OGL on them.
I'm not sayign two wrongs make a right. I'm just saying I won't loose any sleep.

 

[philreed]

The legality of the situation is in question, and I think that invalidates it as an example case for a discussion about open content that was deliberately rendered open.

For me it isn't at all about the legality. It's about respect and responsibility.

I am not at all denying that an OGL Wiki, if the license was followed correctly, would be perfectly legal. I am saying that it would be disrespectful to the creators and publishers involved and an irresponsible use of the OGL.