I'm late to the party but I'd like to add a few comments and hopefully rest Phil's aching wrist.
I agree with Phil and Joe GB (and forgotten others I'm sure). An OGC Wiki or other collection would reduce the amount of future OGC. This isn't a threat (We're gonna take our ball and go home), it is the logical means to remain in business in the face of a shifting market.
Currently the OGL allows anyone and everyone to reuse the material released as OGC. We know this. It is a risk. Some publishers avoid the risk and they obfuscate and cripple their OGC declaration making it impossible for easy legitimate use of their content. Other publishers take the risk and release easy to reuse content.
The risk is that someone will deficate in their nest and cause the current model of openness to be less desirable to publishers. I think the best analogy is the prisoner's dilemna. Two people commit a crime. The police have no admissable evidence but know they have the two criminals. The crime has a 25 year mandatory sentence on conviction. They go to suspect 1 and say, if you turn state's evidence on suspect 2 and plea guilty to a lessor charge, you'll only serve 5 years in prison. They make the identical offer to suspect 2. If neither suspect takes the deal, they both walk free. But can they take that chance? If suspect 2 turns on suspect 1, he serves a shorter sentence. So instead of a guarenteed 5 years and out, he's taking 50/50 odds on 25 years or 0 years.
Once a large repository of OGC develops, the risk taking publishers stand to lose sales. In the face of a shifting market they will either turn to a less friend declaration of OGC or they will go out of business. In either case, the amount of future OGC goes down.
Yes, you can take any of my products, copy the text into a new document and republish it. I can't stop you. It would hurt my sales though and my ability to maintain my 100% OGC stance would be jepardized by it.
Yes, I entered into OGL publishing fully aware of the risk I was taking. This was not a surprise I discovered after publishing for a while. I entered with eyes wide open.
No, using the prisoner's dilemna as an example does NOT mean I believe that OGC reusers are in anyway criminals. Theoretically, if suspects 1 and 2 are best buds who look out for one another, they'll walk when the police are required to let them go. I take the chance that you are all stand-up gamers who will walk rather than taking the sure-thing that benefits you most at the expense of your fellow gamers.
No, specific examples of Monte Cook's OGC declarations are not really relevant to this discussion.
And finally, whether or not you agree information wants to be free, freeing OGC just because one can will cause change in the availability of future OGC.
Did I miss any angles? We make our OGC declaration based on an optimistic view of how gamers will treat the work we've done. Once that optimism becomes unfounded, there will be a shift in how future works treat OGC.
