OGC Wiki?

[Man-thing]

Try using both to type. It really improves productivity. I imagine you could put out twice your normal number of products if you typed with both hands.

joe b.

I think Phil was meaning in regards to his CTS.

 

[philreed]

Try using both to type. It really improves productivity. I imagine you could put out twice your normal number of products if you typed with both hands. .

I knew I was doing something wrong. Watch out, world! Two hands it is!

 

[philreed]

Okay, boiling it down to this, I just disagree. The creators and publishers have given permission to use their work in this manner. Whether it would be advisable or responsible to do so is another issue. As others have pointed out, it would probably cause a decrease in the quality and quantity of d20 material. It simply for reasons of the logistics of maintaining it and the consequences of its existence would not be a good idea to create a d20 wiki. But it wouldn't be an affront to the publishers that created the open content used. If they take offence, they didn't understand the agreement that the OGL demands of them.

So you're saying that you do not respect the work of those producing OGC and feel their work has no value and should be online for free? Because -- to me -- that's what it feels like you are saying.

 

[BryonD]

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.

Heh. Joe Browning pretty much said what I wanted to say.

Wanting something is fine. Saying it is immoral when you don't get it is another.

 

[Nellisir]

...pretty much none of whom have the slightest idea of how the license was intended and was communicated to publishers from the beginning.

How it was communicated is irrelevant. What it says is relevant. I can tell you I'm sending you a hundred bucks, but if I send Monopoly money, the bank won't care what I "communicated" to you.

And the license was intended to drive money into WotC's pocket. That's the nitty-gritty of it.

 

[Yair]

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?

Alright, I agree. While the cases are different, I can see why "you can do it, but it isn't nice" is a valid argument.
Both cases rely on the publisher's expectations. Monte expects the zone rules to be closed, and we respect that. The Tome of Horror is expected not to be ripped off and sold, and we respect that.

 

[BryonD]

Okay, boiling it down to this, I just disagree. The creators and publishers have given permission to use their work in this manner. Whether it would be advisable or responsible to do so is another issue. As others have pointed out, it would probably cause a decrease in the quality and quantity of d20 material. It simply for reasons of the logistics of maintaining it and the consequences of its existence would not be a good idea to create a d20 wiki. But it wouldn't be an affront to the publishers that created the open content used. If they take offence, they didn't understand the agreement that the OGL demands of them.

shrug

yep, that is pretty much it.

 

[jgbrowning]

Cool. Then you and I agree.
Obviously I don't share your personal motivation.
But I see that you are able to separate that from an emotional response to the situation.
I REALLY respect that.

How I think things should work and how they do work are rarely congruent.

So much so that I just bought Beast Builder.

That cracks me up. Thanks!

joe b.

 

[Odhanan]

You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?

Fair enough, Yair. I think it is all about ressource management, even though no one is in charge of it.

Plainly said, I don't have the time and do my part for the d20 community, and I think most of us here do their part as well. So it takes just one guy to do the deed. Who will? Not I. But somebody will, I'm sure of it.

 

[HinterWelt]

So you're saying that you do not respect the work of those producing OGC and feel their work has no value and should be online for free? Because -- to me -- that's what it feels like you are saying.

Phil,
I honestly have never understood this. I have done OGL on three of my books. I EXPECT that people will reprint it (entirely or in parts) and it is part of my plan. I do not understand publihsers who object to this. If you don't want it to happen, then use a different license or publish closed material. No direspect meant here, just trying to wrap my head around the argument.

Bill