OGC Wiki?

[R_kajdi]

Honestly, does this thing come back to the whole social contract thing? It seems to me a lot of developers are not really aware of what they are doing when they make things OGC or not.

Basically, if you use the OGL, you've taken from the common pot. At the very least, this is the relevent SRD(s), and can also include other OGC out there. This is not free however. While it doesn't cost dollars, it does cost a "tax" in a minimum amount of OGC that you have to have in the product. Basically, to take from the common pot, you have to leave something back there for other people to use. And just like before with the SRD and OGC that you used, you bascially have no control over this stuff. To complain that someone else has decided to take the stuff you put in the community pot and is using it in a way you don't like is very selfish. Basically everything you put into the community pot is a loss to you. You've given it away as the "price" to use what's currently in there. To take and not expect to have to actually put back is violating the social contract that allowed you to take in the first place.

To use an example from another industry, let's look at computer software. The GNU license is in many ways similar to the OGC, though they are not exact congantes. However, the differences in these cases are minimal. The initial Linux implementation is GNU. Think of this as your SRD. If, say, RedHat wants to go out and make a product based on Linux (like they have done in the past) they are free to do so at no dollar cost, but have to realease the code to their program, and have to do so under the same terms as they got their initial code. Sounds fair, right? Okay, now I can turn around, and can give that code away for free. RedHat has exactly zero say in telling me to stop, since they used the same terms to get what they needed to start initially. Am I a bad person, or somehow amoral for doing this? No, this is a common practice in the Open Source software community.

Now, let's go back to our initial argument. Developers are crying foul because while they have taken from the community of ideas, they now want to limit how thier payment gets used, because it may cost them something. This is fundamentally flawed, since effectively the argument is that waht was good for the goose is not good for the gander. You were allowed to use what you got in any way you wanted, and were forced to pay back some stuff to the same community of ideas. Now this payment is actully being paid, and you don't like the price. At this point, it honestly has to be "Too bad". If you didn't like the price that had to be paid, you shouldn't have used the license. To think in any other way is incredibly irresponsible.

Raymond K. Crum

 

[philreed]

It also attracts people who would like to learn. Which I have.

This is something I hadn't considered. Thanks for posting this viewpoint.

 

[philreed]

If you didn't like the price that had to be paid, you shouldn't have used the license.

No, you're wrong. What it looks like is that every single publisher that was generous with their OGC should have used restrictive declarations. After all, if you (and this time I mean you in the specific sense) don't care enough about the publishers and the community to understand that OGC is valuable -- and should be treated responsibly -- then there is no reason the publishers should attempt to help build the OGC community.

 

[jgbrowning]

Honestly, does this thing come back to the whole social contract thing? It seems to me a lot of developers are not really aware of what they are doing when they make things OGC or not.

They are. Given the rest of your post, I don't think you are, however.

Basically, if you use the OGL, you've taken from the common pot. At the very least, this is the relevent SRD(s), and can also include other OGC out there. This is not free however. While it doesn't cost dollars, it does cost a "tax" in a minimum amount of OGC that you have to have in the product.

There is no "minimum" amount of required OGC in an OGL product. There is no "tax."

Basically, to take from the common pot, you have to leave something back there for other people to use.

This isn't true.

And just like before with the SRD and OGC that you used, you bascially have no control over this stuff. To complain that someone else has decided to take the stuff you put in the community pot and is using it in a way you don't like is very selfish. Basically everything you put into the community pot is a loss to you. You've given it away as the "price" to use what's currently in there. To take and not expect to have to actually put back is violating the social contract that allowed you to take in the first place.

Since there is no minimum required the above doesn't follow.

To use an example from another industry, let's look at computer software. The GNU license is in many ways similar to the OGC, though they are not exact congantes. However, the differences in these cases are minimal. The initial Linux implementation is GNU. Think of this as your SRD. If, say, RedHat wants to go out and make a product based on Linux (like they have done in the past) they are free to do so at no dollar cost, but have to realease the code to their program, and have to do so under the same terms as they got their initial code. Sounds fair, right? Okay, now I can turn around, and can give that code away for free. RedHat has exactly zero say in telling me to stop, since they used the same terms to get what they needed to start initially. Am I a bad person, or somehow amoral for doing this? No, this is a common practice in the Open Source software community.

Yes. This is not the Open Source software community, however. What you describe is not common practice in this community. In fact, unlike Open Source software in which the end user benefits from the above practice, the end user will not benefit as less OGC material will be produced.

The people making OGC, unlike the people making Open Source software, are doing so because they're being fiscally rewarded.

Now, let's go back to our initial argument. Developers are crying foul because while they have taken from the community of ideas, they now want to limit how thier payment gets used, because it may cost them something. This is fundamentally flawed, since effectively the argument is that waht was good for the goose is not good for the gander.

No one has ever been "forced" to add OGC material. I could close every single thing I've ever done and use Phil's "Only game mechanics directly based on material from the SRD is presented as open game content. All text, including names and descriptions, are closed content and may not be used without permission of the publisher," as my statement.

If every publisher starts doing this, the only new OGC will be coming from non-publishers.

You were allowed to use what you got in any way you wanted, and were forced to pay back some stuff to the same community of ideas. Now this payment is actully being paid, and you don't like the price. At this point, it honestly has to be "Too bad".

If you didn't like the price that had to be paid, you shouldn't have used the license. To think in any other way is incredibly irresponsible.

Much of your post and train of thought is based upon a misunderstanding of the license.

No, you're wrong. What it looks like is that every single publisher that was generous with their OGC should have used restrictive declarations. After all, if you (and this time I mean you in the specific sense) don't care enough about the publishers and the community to understand that OGC is valuable -- and should be treated responsibly -- then there is no reason the publishers should attempt to help build the OGC community.

Indeed! It appears that all the publishers who don't want a FREE to the public source of OGC have been incredibly irresponsible by creating the damn OGC to begin with that other people now think is supposed to be free of cost because "the license means it can be free of cost."

Oh well. I have been irresponsible in assuming others could be responsible. I guess I should go be responsible by closing as much as possible in my upcoming works and let all the publishers know, "Hey just contact me and I'll let you use whatever you want. I would have made it all open but some people don't respect the fact that I want to get paid for my work."

I imagine this would be the result. A "Cabal" of publishers who allow other publishers to reuse material while prohibiting anything but the very minimum from being OGC.

Is getting stuff for free (of cost) really worth creating such a "community"?

joe b.

 

[BryonD]

Isn't it true, that it's easier to claim 100% OGC and including all of your sources in Section 15 than separating out the Product Identity (PI)?

Probably, but if you think the further effort is not worthwhile then you are mistaken. I don't believe for one second that a single for profit publisher chooses 100% OGL as a short cut.

Please don't get me wrong, but this entire OGC debate seems like someone donated some sports equipment and then gets mad if the equipment is later given away for free.

Zelgar

That's fine.

If you are using the word "donate" then you truly do not understand the topic.
There is no law against that.

 

[philreed]

Oh well. I have been irresponsible in assuming others could be responsible.

I'm just as guilty as you are. Perhaps it's finally time I joined the ranks of the responsible publishers with restrictive OGC declarations. That appears to be what a large number of people are asking publishers to do.

 

[jmucchiello]

Honestly, does this thing come back to the whole social contract thing? It seems to me a lot of developers are not really aware of what they are doing when they make things OGC or not.

Basically, if you use the OGL, you've taken from the common pot. At the very least, this is the relevent SRD(s), and can also include other OGC out there. This is not free however. While it doesn't cost dollars, it does cost a "tax" in a minimum amount of OGC that you have to have in the product. Basically, to take from the common pot, you have to leave something back there for other people to use. And just like before with the SRD and OGC that you used, you bascially have no control over this stuff. To complain that someone else has decided to take the stuff you put in the community pot and is using it in a way you don't like is very selfish. Basically everything you put into the community pot is a loss to you. You've given it away as the "price" to use what's currently in there. To take and not expect to have to actually put back is violating the social contract that allowed you to take in the first place.

Did you even read what we've been posting? We know you CAN make it available for free. We aren't saying you CAN'T do it. We are ASKING you not to.

We are telling you that making it free will cause a reduction in future OGC. If you want the amount of OGC to continue to flow, abide by our REQUEST that OGC not be made freely available in a single repository. If you don't give a flying f***, then do what you want and accept the consequences.

Also, there is no mimimum amount of OGC required by the OGL. You have confused the OGL and d20 licenses.

 

[BryonD]

You mean a publisher can't declare 25% OGC and then open content 100% to publishers only?

Pinotage

Nope, they can not.
They can make it clear that they will share their IP with others who ask.
Monte frequently does this I believe.

But content is either open or not.

A lot of content must be OGC by the rules. The question comes in when you do stuff that doesn't have to be. Some protect every drop and others offer it up. Others still are in between.

 

[jezter6]

I'm just as guilty as you are. Perhaps it's finally time I joined the ranks of the responsible publishers with restrictive OGC declarations. That appears to be what a large number of people are asking publishers to do.

Phil, Joe, Wulf, Ralts, et al:

Aside from game mechanics that are SRD derivative content (feats, classes, etc) that are regularly open, what else have you released as OGC that other publishers have actually used? I don't have all the products ever created, so I can't answer it, but because publishers generally ask each other about using content...what have you created that other publishers have actually used outside of the basic mechanics of the game?

 

[philreed]

You have confused the OGL and d20 licenses.

Which is such a simple mistake that whenever I see someone make it I just instantly conclude they have no clue what they're talking about.