OGC Wiki?

[Yair]

The concept has been by no means abandoned.

Where is the raised eyebrow smily when you need it?

 

[HinterWelt]

The argument is that reusing OGC is fine. You are developing intellectually upon that which has been put out for that purpose.

Giving away OGC is what the problem is. If you simply copy something and give it away for free, you are not contributing to the discourse of game design. All you're doing is making the production of d20 game material no longer a viable business strategy.

I don't think any of the publishers are objecting to people using the OGC they create. What we're opposed to is the idea that people might go against what we perceive is the spirit of the OGL. We think the spirit of the OGL is to help people use Open Content in their products, to add value to the d20 game system. It is against that spirit to simply give away Open Content that someone else is trying to make money on.

It's like this:

"Hertz, I'd like to rent a car."

"Okay."

"Oh, now that I have your car, I'm going to give it away."

"Darn."

And for the record, I realize it's a flawed analogy. But 'darn' is fun to say, especially if you imagine a mopey Hertz clerk. *grin*

Well, my point really has been argued out earlier in the thread so I will try to be brief. I publish material under the OGL. I read the the OGL and the first thing that popped into my head was that if I published under the OGL all my material (that I declare open) could be released for free. In the end, I accepted it as possible but also made my lawyer (I paid him to) read through and familiarize himself with the OGL so when someone screws up I can come down like a hammer. Am I looking forward to that? No, but I am prepared and it is in the plan.

As I said to Phil, I respect people who have high standards but you need to be realistic as well. If you are that concerned about your IP being released for free, don;t make it open content or make your own license.

Just my opinions of course, YMMV,
Bill

 

[philreed]

And while I'm at it, what's the difference between:
1. Mr. A publishes 25% open content book X. Mr. B transcribes open content from book X and puts it on internet for free. Mr. A makes no money from this arrangement.
2. Mr. A publishes 25% open content book X. Mr. C transcribes open content from book X and sells it as a PDF, making a profit. Mr. A makes no money from this arrangement.

You seem to be saying that 2 is okay, but 1 isn't. That seems odd to me. I would have thought you'd have a bigger beef with Mr. C, who makes money on Mr. A's work than with Mr. B, who doesn't. In the latter case, people have to pay for the content, but they're paying Mr. C, not Mr. A. Why should Mr. A care whether Mr. C is getting paid?

#2 is preferred, in my opinion.

Please note the post earlier where I said that I wish WotC would have made one of the terms of the OGL that no more than 50% of the OGC in a product could be reprinted and 50% must be new material. I feel publishers that do nothing but collect and resell OGC without adding new material -- almost always at a reduced price -- are not using the material responsibly.

The one time I created an SRD-based product I added an appendix of all new material and released that new material for free.

 

[Yair]

:\

Most people will not buy something if they can get it for free. The percentage who will are, frankly, of insufficient number to greatly impact the direction of this discussion one way or the other.

Hmm. Most people will not buy something if they can legally get it for free at a reasonable price. If they feel the price is unjustified or they can legally get it for free, then they will not pay for it.
That's my experience, at least.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

How about this?

"All you can eat, huh? Twenty-four hour buffet, huh? Well, I guess I'm never leaving."
*The patron then proceeds to take platefuls of food to the bathroom, and dumps them into the toilet, flushing them away.*

The all-you-can eat sushi restaurant near my place has a policy regarding uneaten food: you pay extra.

 

[philreed]

Nothing but respect for you Phil,

Thank you.

 

[HinterWelt]

:\

Most people will not buy something if they can get it for free. The percentage who will are, frankly, of insufficient number to greatly impact the direction of this discussion one way or the other.

Interesting. Our books are available for free in HTML format on our site. It has, if anything, improved our sales. People are able to look and then decide if it is worth it to buy.

I could be wrong and it has cost us hundreds of units in terms of sales.

Bill

 

[Mouseferatu]

Hmm. Most people will not buy something if they can legally get it for free at a reasonable price. If they feel the price is unjustified or they can legally get it for free, then they will not pay for it.
That's my experience, at least.

Absolutely. I sort of assumed the "legal" aspect. Pirated copies are a whole different ball of wax, and not a direction this thread needs to take.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Interesting. Our books are available for free in HTML format on our site. It has, if anything, improves our sales. People are able to look and then decide if it is worth it to buy.

I could be wrong and it has cost us hundreds of units in terms of sales.

Bill

The entire book is available in HTML?

I have no idea how to explain that, then. I can't imagine buying a PDF of a book I could get for free in HTML, not when there are so many other things I want to purchase.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

#2 is preferred, in my opinion.

Please note the post earlier where I said that I wish WotC would have made one of the terms of the OGL that no more than 50% of the OGC in a product could be reprinted and 50% must be new material.

I do recall. And I agreed, since that modification to the OGL would satisfy us both, you as a publisher and me as a gamer and maybe-someday-casual-publisher.