OGC Wiki?

[BryonD]

I'm arguing from a different perspective than I think you may be.

<SNIP>

If the intent of the OGL and OGC was to create FREE (as in no cost) material, the license would prohibit creators from charging for the material.

Yep, I think we have slightly different POV.

Would you say this sentence: "If the intent of the OGL and OGC was to prohibit FREE (as in no cost) material, the license would require publishers charge for the material." counters your position? I do not. And I don't think your position does any better of countering the pro-wiki side.

I don't think that there is any intent to create free material or to prohibit free material. Free material and intent of the OGL don't really belong in the same reasoning.

It is simply irrelevant to the arguement. Nothing in my position is even related to what the intent of the OGL is. The intent of the OGL supports neither side. If anything, the OGL was designed with eyes wide open knowing it would permit free redistribution. So, if anything, that sways a tiny bit against you.

But it doesn't matter. The OGL's intention doesn't offer you any aid and your own intention is moot in regard to material you have already released.



Anyway, IMO, the intent of the OGL is very simple: Help sell WotC D&D product.

 

[BryonD]

And at the root: If an author releases OGC for cost under a license that allows someone else to release the same OGC free of cost, releasing the OGC free of cost, while legal under the license, is obviously counter to the will of the creator.

If someone doesn't care about the creator's intent, this is a moot point. But to say "what the OGC really wants is to be free of cost" isn't true. It's more like "What I really want is for everyone else's OGC to be free of cost so I don't have to pay for it."

Big difference

joe b.

OK, I agree with you here. Funny that we both posted saying that your intention was "moot" at the exact same time.

I've never said that OGC wants to be free. And I've already agreed that the majority of the pro-wiki side just want to rationalize free stuff. I find that pathetic. I get pissed off at people sticking their hand and and saying "gimmie".

But no matter what your opinion may be, the majority of the people who agree with you are idiots.

 

[Pramas]

Well, let me just pump my last few cents into this:

3) I believe the Wiki will ultimately be counterproductive for the community-- both the publishing community, and the gaming community. I believe the negatives outweigh the positives.

5) The very idea of the 'publisher resource' Wiki overlooks a pretty fundamental observation about game designers: We all think we can do it better than anybody else.

6) Personally? I'd say the largest portion of proponents are just folks who want something for nothing. Some of them even seem to believe they deserve something for nothing.

Wulf makes many good points, but I think these are the key ones.

I'd just like to add that what's being talked about has serious potential to damage people's livelihoods. It's easy to be cavalier about such things when it's not your salary or your mortgage payments on the line. Sure, we got into this industry because we love gaming, but it's also the way we make a living. We don't work our asses off for substandard wages so we can see the fruits of our labor given away for free on the internet. Information may want to be free, but my family also wants to eat. So there you go.

I'm sure this will make Phil happy and I'm just as sure I'll regret saying anything.

 

[jmucchiello]

So far, I have only seen a handful of publishers period posting on this thread. I can't speak to past threads, since I never read them, but I wonder how many are reading this but not posting. How do we know what their opinions are?

We can speak of past threads. There is not a publisher that I'm aware of that has said a public repository of OGC would be a good thing for publishers or publishing.

Of course, should a publisher say he's behind a public OGC repository, I suspect someone would immediately release that publisher's OGC onto a public repository and that perhaps is holding back any publishers leaning on the other side of the fence. But if there were someone fully behind such a repository, I don't see why they wouldn't say so. (Aside from not having seen this thread. )

 

[Zelgar]

Joe, you didn't totally misunderstood what I was saying.

I agree that OPEN means "free to distribute", but I believe it also can mean "free of cost". Once something becomes OGC, provided that I can quote all of the OGC material correctly and follow all of the requirements of the OGL, I can distribute the material in any method (e.g., in a book, on a web page - Wiki) at any cost (e.g., free or $X).

I think some people would think that it would be unethical/illegal to publish OGC that was created by someone else if they did not own the original source (or the source where they found the material), but that is not a requirement of the OGL.

I think that this is why some game designers, publishers, and others in the Role Playing Industry are so adamant about not having an OGC Wiki. Even though they volunteered their material as OGC, they do not want it freely distributed (i.e., in a Wiki) to the public.

Zelgar

 

[Conaill]

The real question I have in all this: is it the open content (the classes, the feats, the spells) that publishers are scratching to hold on to? Or is it the 'The entire text of this product is 100% ogc' that is starting to worry people because setting and fluff were released under the license instead of protected as PI?

It's not really a matter of "scratching to hold on to" their content, or greedily sitting on a pile of stuff and not letting anyone else get their grubby hands on it.

The publishers are merely worried that by releasing this material for free, people will stop *buying* their products, and they'll be forced out of business. It's that simple.

 

[Crothian]

Has anyone thought of only using material that has been out for 6 months or more? Let the publishers get some sales of items for a half of year before it would be added to the Wiki

 

[jgbrowning]

Yep, I think we have slightly different POV.

Would you say this sentence: "If the intent of the OGL and OGC was to prohibit FREE (as in no cost) material, the license would require publishers charge for the material." counters your position? I do not. And I don't think your position does any better of countering the pro-wiki side.

I don't think that there is any intent to create free material or to prohibit free material. Free material and intent of the OGL don't really belong in the same reasoning.

Which is why I was talking about creator intent, and not OGL intent. I think we both agree that the OGL has no intent in any fashion concerning value, only distribution, which is why I think no one can claim "OGC yearns to be free of cost" or conversely "OGC yearns to be with cost."

However, I can say "If you use my OGC and make it FREE, when I have already made it for cost, you are obviously doing somthing that I as a creator didn't want done." Just because the license allows you the ability to do it doesn't mean the license is pro or against making OGC FREE of cost. The license gives the legal authority to do so against the wishes of the creator because the license is independent of matters of valuation. And every creator signed on with the liscense, so they know it's a possiblity. But it doesn't mean that it's what they want to happen, so don't use a false justification such as "OGC yearns to be free" as an excuse for turning someone's for pay work into something for free.

Anyway, IMO, the intent of the OGL is very simple: Help sell WotC D&D product.

Of course.

joe b.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm sure this will make Phil happy and I'm just as sure I'll regret saying anything.

No, Chris, it's important for you to mention it, because some folks around here seem to think that innovative mechanics specifically like those found in Mutants and Masterminds will somehow just ing write themselves, and that the RPG publishing community can get on with the "serious business" of providing flavorful fluff for the "savvy" consumer.

 

[jgbrowning]

Joe, you didn't totally misunderstood what I was saying.

I agree that OPEN means "free to distribute", but I believe it also can mean "free of cost".

It can mean that but the license doesn't support or resist such a reading. However, almost every creator of OGC resists such a meaning by releasing OGC for cost and not free of cost.

Once something becomes OGC, provided that I can quote all of the OGC material correctly and follow all of the requirements of the OGL, I can distribute the material in any method (e.g., in a book, on a web page - Wiki) at any cost (e.g., free or $X).

Yep.

I think some people would think that it would be unethical/illegal to publish OGC that was created by someone else if they did not own the original source (or the source where they found the material), but that is not a requirement of the OGL.

Unethical not in action, but in result is what I think a lot of people think.

I think that this is why some game designers, publishers, and others in the Role Playing Industry are so adamant about not having an OGC Wiki. Even though they volunteered their material as OGC, they do not want it freely distributed (i.e., in a Wiki) to the public.

It's notthe freely distributed bit, it's the free of cost bit that most people don't like. If you had a Wiki that was charging for access, there'd be a lot less concern because you are showing that the material you're distributing has worth and more importantly you're protecting the worth of other people's OGC.

Hell, if you wanted to set up a wiki of OGC material (pay publishers a small fee as a show of good faith that isn't required under the OGL) and then charge for access, you'd have more support than a free of cost wiki.

If you give it away, you're saying to everyone who uses it that the material contained herein has no fiscal worth. Devaluing the value of a product in someone's head is a very insidious thing. Once people get used to getting something for free they find it harder and harder to pay for something similiar. This means less produced which is basicaly counter to the concept of an open community by reducing the desire for openness as opposed to creating a greater desire for openness in the very people who create the material to begin with.

joe b.