OGC Wiki?

[Man-thing]

I could have already finished this PDF if I hadn't posted to this thread.

3 pdfs most likely.

 

[Yair]

3 pdfs most likely.

Especially now, that he writes with both hands.

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

In that case, I stand corrected.

 

[BryonD]

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

They can feel any way they want. But they can't justify ignoring the requirements of the OGL, regardless of their feelings.

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.

hmmm. It seems clear as day to me.

Maybe this will help clarify:
Obviously you personally would not do this, as you have stated. But, say someone got their OGC declaration wrong and presented SRD derived (i.e. "must be open") content as IP. Some other publisher decides to use it anyway because they know (or feel) that it must be open. Do you have any problem with this publisher letting the requirements of the OGL trump the feeling of the original author?

 

[BryonD]

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

Me neither.

 

[BryonD]

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?

Yes. It would. No problem at all from an OGL pov.

 

[philreed]

Maybe this will help clarify:
Obviously you personally would not do this, as you have stated. But, say someone got their OGC declaration wrong and presented SRD derived (i.e. "must be open") content as IP. Some other publisher decides to use it anyway because they know (or feel) that it must be open. Do you have any problem with this publisher letting the requirements of the OGL trump the feeling of the original author?

It's not what I would do but as long the use was responsible I wouldn't get too worried about it -- that's something for the two publishers to work out between themselves.

 

[dpmcalister]

Yes. It would. No problem at all from an OGL pov.

Hmm... I was under the impression that you couldn't just republish someone else's OGC material without first adding new OGC material. Perhaps I have misread things...

 

[BryonD]

It's not what I would do but as long the use was responsible I wouldn't get too worried about it -- that's something for the two publishers to work out between themselves.

Why do you say that?
I understand the value of publishers being polite and working together in the use of OGC.
But there is no requirement there.
Publisher B can use Publisher A's open stuff without saying a word to Publisher A if they so choose. (always assuming correct OGL implementation).

Assume Publisher X is using product from two other products. In neither case does he contact the source author. He takes perfectly typical and correctly declared OGC from product A. He takes material from product B that is declared as IP, but was incorrectly declared and is actually material which the OGL requires must have been open.
Is there a big difference to you?
Should Publisher X be allowed to ignore Publisher B's OGL misuse?
or Should Publisher B be allowed to get away with misusing the OGL?




I guess I also don't find mauch value in the word responsible because it means different things to different people. It either is OGL compliant or not. That means something.

 

[philreed]

Hmm... I was under the impression that you couldn't just republish someone else's OGC material without first adding new OGC material. Perhaps I have misread things...

I wish it did work this way, but it doesn't. If this was the case then the countless SRD collections wouldn't be available (at least, not without the addition of new material).

 

[BryonD]

Hmm... I was under the impression that you couldn't just republish someone else's OGC material without first adding new OGC material. Perhaps I have misread things...

Perhaps you are thinking of the D20 license?
It did not actually require new stuff either (I believe), but it did add additional requirements and there was some confusion early on in the distinction between the OGL and the D20 License.

dunno

I don't really recall the D20 particulars.