OGC Wiki?

[Nellisir]

Then I'm against it.
Since all it basically says is: "Anything you come up with, we'll post here whenever we feel like it, and there's nothing you can do."
I vote no.

Yair left out my window of time.

Here's how it works. You do everything exactly as you do now. Nothing changes. You and the FCR exist, side by side, never touching, forever, amen.

OR, one day, you use something from the FCR. By virtue of the OGL, you have to include in your S.15 a phrase something like *Free Content Repository: [material], copyright 2006, [copyright holder]*.

The FCR doesn't mandate that, the OGL does.

I recommended a 12-18 month grace period PER INDIVIDUAL PRODUCT counting from the release . AFTER that period has expired, a product that has derived from the FCR, and is so tagged in the S.15, automatically becomes "authorized" to be entered into the FCR.

"product" in all cases refers to OGC.

It's only fair. If you benefit from the FCR, you should add something in. If you disagree with that, then you're saying that you should get something for nothing.

Furthermore, it's not an additional restriction on the OGL -- you are free to sell content from the FCR. It's all normal OGC. And we're not requiring that you grant special rights. The OGL already grants anyone the right to extract OGC at any time.

Does that clarify things?

 

[Nellisir]

The biggest risk of an OGC Wiki is that copyrighted, not-open material will find its way onto the site. What happens when this non-OGC material is used by someone else? How long would it take before, like a virus, illegal material spreads throughout products and the industry?

Isn't this true of any OGC? There are multiple websites out there with flawed OGLs and PI material; any of that could, "like a virus" spread illegal material throughout the industry. There are PUBLISHERS out there like that.

The answer, insofar as the FCR is concerned, would be strict control and policing of the material. That's all anyone can do.

Your comment boils down to "I don't trust you", or, "I trust you to screw things up", and that just sucks. I can't argue with that. You'll assume anything I say is a lie.

 

[Zelgar]

What I find frustrating are the number of people that feel as if I owe them the OGC and if I object to my work being given away to the world then I'm obviously anti-OGL and just taking advantage of everyone. It's as if they feel that I should feel lucky to get to spend my days working on gaming material.

First and foremost, I do not believe that as a game designer or publisher you owe anyone OGC. The requirements of OGC is established by the OGL. It is up to the game designer or publisher to make the decision to open up any additional material as OGC. If you do decide to make material OGC, then you need to be aware of the consequences.

It seems like part of the problem is the amount of OGC or new OGC that is required in publications. The OGL does not indicate any minimum OGC must be included in a document. Based upon several comments, it seemed like approximately 20% of the material needed to be OGC. Is this a requirement of d20 license? Also, isn't part of the problem with the percentage of OGC is that it does not define how much of the OGC needs to be "new"?

I think it would be a disservice to the gaming community if game designers or publishers start limiting the new OGC in their product because they did not want people to be able to freely distribute the material, weather or not a Wiki is ever developed. I think some game developers or publishers have been a little niave or misinformed on what can happen when you make content OGC, but complaining about it after the fact does not help.

Zelgar

 

[Pinotage]

Multiple attempts at stripping the OGC from Unearthed Arcana has, if only one thing, shown me that many people do not grasp even the basics of the OGL.

Have you seen the Unearthed Arcana from www.d20srd.org? Does that violate the OGL? Just curious, as I'm by no means fluent in OGL-speak.

Pinotage

 

[Man-thing]

I would think in the fact that it includes Monster Manual II in its section 15, it is violation.

 

[philreed]

I think it would be a disservice to the gaming community if game designers or publishers start limiting the new OGC in their product because they did not want people to be able to freely distribute the material, weather or not a Wiki is ever developed.

If someone threatened to seriously damage your paycheck what would you do?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I would think in the fact that it includes Monster Manual II in its section 15, it is violation.

It depends what content from MMII is in there. IIRC, Wizards included 2 monsters from Sword & Sorcery's Creature Collection, as a way to showcase the OGL.

 

[Man-thing]

as a way to showcase the OGL.

That's right, I forgot all about that.

But, looking it the site, it really brings home the point for me. If I had known all of UA was there I wouldn't have bought it.

 

[Zelgar]

I think it would be a disservice to the gaming community if game designers or publishers start limiting the new OGC in their product because they did not want people to be able to freely distribute the material, weather or not a Wiki is ever developed.

If someone threatened to seriously damage your paycheck what would you do?

I would evaluate what I was doing and try to limit the damage. Unfortunately, for game designers and publishers, if they begin to limit new OGC, they may become criticized by their consumers and lose revenue due to lost sales. This can become a vicious spiral where less and less OGC is produced and the industry losing sales as a result.

I would not be surprised if the amount of new OGC becomes to decrease because of discussions like an OGC Wiki. If the decrease is gradual versus abrupt, the effect on the industry is likely to be minimized.

Zelgar

 

[ukgpublishing]

If someone threatened to seriously damage your paycheck what would you do?

Probably terminate them with extreme prejudice and hide the bodies in the nearest lime pits