OGC Wiki?

[jezter6]

Phil, you don't consider intentionally obscuring content abuse? Closing stuff that 'should' be open, also not abuse?

It looks like some guys don't want to play fair, and when that happens nobody steps up to the plate to say 'this is wrong.'

But as soon as a non-publisher type wants to create an OGC wiki with tons of free open content, which is not doing anything against the license itself, a stink is raised by many a publisher?

Personally, I don't think this kind of statement is fair at all. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander as well. In fact, I think that by crippling OGC, they are doing much more of a disservice to the game than someone who wants to release content that is already open.

There's one thing to respect Monte for his work in the industry to help create the game we all love, but by blindly following his bad example it sets a bad precedent for things to come when publisher start closing more and more material that should (by the license anyways) be open.

 

[Roudi]

Holy flaming flame wars, Batman!

I think this discussion has gotten way out of hand. Personally, I'd rather see all of you take the energy you're putting towards this debate and direct it instead at creating something useful, like original material. And if you really wanted to do the community a service, you could submit that material to a publication that releases it for free (like, say, MODERNIZED).

Facta non verba, folks... deeds, not words. Or, as Ralts would say, "put up or shut up."

 

[Zelgar]

I do not consider restrictive OGC declarations to be a form of abuse. Anyone can write their designation of OGC however they wish.

I'll again say: respect and responsibilty. I don't care if it's a publisher, gamer, or alien, but I do care about how the material is used. A publisher that doesn't responsibly use the OGL, or doesn't respect his fellow publishers, doesn't deserve any special treatment in my eyes.

How is having a WIKI with OGC material abuse? Provided that all of the OGL is followed, I would think that publishers would be more favorable to the WIKI than having other publishers possibly changing the intent of the OGC material originally published by the author.

To me, the most fair method would to have all of the OGC material on the net with each page having a link back to the origin of the OGC. The language in the WIKI should be exactly the same as the original OGC with possible sublinks if there had been revisions by the original publisher or others.

Mr Reed indicates that one of his concerns is "how the material is used". From my understanding, the WIKI would be organized in a fairly standard manner (e.g., by class, prestigue class, race, feats, spells, etc.) and use the original OGC language. How would this be misuse of the material?

Zelgar

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

OK, I'll chime in here.

Crippled Content? You're violating the spirit of the liscense, and frankly, you're cheating. You do this, and my estimation of your ethics comes into play. Yes, it was your hard work that did it, but guess what, every single piece of OGC out there is someone's hard work. Crippled Content is like all touchdowns only counting for the home team.

As far as OGC Wiki? Be my guest. With my material, I have no problem with you using the mechanics that I have written. Those are perfectly open. I'd like to be notified, it's only polite, but hey.

See, it's the information that is NOT OGC, the non-mechanics, that really make a purchase for me. I've bought books that weren't even compatible with a system in order to use the non-mechanics in a game.

I have no problem with sheer mechanics.
I do have problems with non-mechanics being placed.

The utility of it cannot be denied. Especially if contact information was included, so I could look up: "d20 Modern>Feats>Firearms" and then see what feats are out there, who made them, and ask for permission for use.

 

[jezter6]

OK, I'll chime in here.

Crippled Content? You're violating the spirit of the liscense, and frankly, you're cheating. You do this, and my estimation of your ethics comes into play. Yes, it was your hard work that did it, but guess what, every single piece of OGC out there is someone's hard work. Crippled Content is like all touchdowns only counting for the home team.

As far as OGC Wiki? Be my guest. With my material, I have no problem with you using the mechanics that I have written. Those are perfectly open. I'd like to be notified, it's only polite, but hey.

See, it's the information that is NOT OGC, the non-mechanics, that really make a purchase for me. I've bought books that weren't even compatible with a system in order to use the non-mechanics in a game.

I have no problem with sheer mechanics.
I do have problems with non-mechanics being placed.

The utility of it cannot be denied. Especially if contact information was included, so I could look up: "d20 Modern>Feats>Firearms" and then see what feats are out there, who made them, and ask for permission for use.

And non-mechanics should be closed anyways. I mean, the heart of YotZ (IMHO) is the setting text. None of it should be open because it's not a mechanic at all. If you wish to open it up to other publishers with a gentleman's agreement, that would be awesome.

I totally agree with your assesment of crippling OGC. Good to see a publisher who's willing to step forward and tell the truth, even if it's harsh (with Ralts, harsh is the nicest way you're gonna get it anyways!).

 

[Yair]

OGC is not limited to mechanics. There are entire settings that are OGC.

 

[Khuxan]

Unacceptable. Read the fineprint. You cannot publish with Wikispaces as it relies on a license that is incompatible with the OGL. Nearly any license is, you need a place that doesn't adhere to any particular license.

Actually, that's not true. You can have a Creative Commons, GNU Free Documentation License or No License Specified.

 

[philreed]

Last attempt.

By not simply strip-mining and dumping OGC online we show respect to the creator of the material. I don't care who created the material. You. Me. God. It doesn't matter. In my opinion the creator of the OGC should be the one to decide if it should be released for free or not.

Also, the creator should be the one to say whether or not he feels his material is OGC.

I don't see how I'm saying publishers can do anything and it's okay but fans that do anything are wrong. I'm not intending to make any sort of distinction between average gamers and publishers.

 

[philreed]

Holy flaming flame wars, Batman!

Actually, I didn't even think this thread was a flame war.

I think this discussion has gotten way out of hand. Personally, I'd rather see all of you take the energy you're putting towards this debate and direct it instead at creating something useful, like original material.

There is that, though. I could have already finished this PDF if I hadn't posted to this thread.

 

[dpmcalister]

But as soon as a non-publisher type wants to create an OGC wiki with tons of free open content, which is not doing anything against the license itself, a stink is raised by many a publisher?

Emphasis mine.

This is, IMHO, the root of the problem. It's not the fact that the material is, or isn't, OGC, it's the fact that the creators of an OGC Wiki would be making the material available for free. Material that other people, for better of worse, have paid for. As I said before, just because the material is designated OGC doesn't make is free.

If Publisher A wrote Book 1, selling for $5, and Publisher B took the OGC material and put it into Book 2 (without new OGC content) and gave it away, would that be within the the OGL?

This publisher versus non-publisher thing is just clouding the issue (I'm not a publisher - I'm not even a writer (I've got one published credit to my name and that's for, mainly, fluff (98% fluff, 2% crunch!)).