OGC Wiki?

[BryonD]

Yes, they can. Something people seem to overlook is that OGC is still copyrighted material. I own what I write and if I elect to make only a small % of the material OGC there is nothing preventing me from allowing others -- of my choice -- to use the remaining material as I wish.

Well, yeah, but that isn't "open", that is just sharing your IP. That exsits in the absence of the OGL.

And as we've all seen happen many times, I can state that some material is closed even if others disagree with me. It is my choice what I open.

It is your choice what you state. But certain things (SRD-derived) must be open even if you state otherwise.

 

[philreed]

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?

First, feats and classes do not have to be OGC. Mechanics within feats and classes do, but I can close the names and descriptions if I wish. Nothing beyond text that is directly based on the SRD must be open. That means that in a single sentence, sometimes, only a few terms must be open.

As for what has been used, several items and spells I've created have been used, mecha gadgets, the possessors, and several hazards.

 

[KaosDevice]

Of course, I doubt the Wiki will happen, either way---the "give me everything for free" crowd isn't known for their nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic....and make no mistake, organizing this thing confirming OGL compliance, etc., will be a TON of work.

I think you have it right there. This all seems to be, largely, argument over something that will never happen anyway. The amount of effort required to mount an operation like an onclusive OGCWiki would be pretty huge, plus hosting costs, etc. Almost a job in and of itself, which is something of an irony for a project that seems solely intended to allow users access to content without paying money.

 

[Pinotage]

Here's where we enter into an area that comes up a lot when people talk about illegal PDFs of older products being okay. Just because something is 1 year, 2 year, or 10 years old doesn't mean that it has no value. There's absolutely no reason for me to think that Green Ronin (going back to my Hammer & Helm example from earlier that appears to have been ignored) can't update the material to 3.5 and rerelease it. Would that material sell as well if the original was already free online?

Good point, thanks! This is an interesting thread.

Pinotage

 

[jgbrowning]

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?

Wulf's used some of my stuff from MMS:WE in his economics section of Grim Tales, none of which could be considered SRD derivative content. Another publisher used stuff from MMS:WE (or at least I think so, they denied it) in one of their products. Not a lot of publishers have used my stuff. However I have used a significant amount of other's OGC in the creation of the Monster Geographica series as well as Beast Builder.

A lot of the content of our products though is more educational than re-usable since we tend to publish material a little different from the norm (world-building stuff).

joe b.

 

[R_kajdi]

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.

#1. There is a minimum amount. That amount is everything derivative of other OGC you used, which may be a bit more than some of you seem to be letting on. Don't assume I made a mistake when I didn't. You are correct there is minimum by % for d20, but that's a seperate issue. I didn't mention d20 (At least I don't think I did) so I'm not sure where the confusion comes from.

#2. I'm really confused here. You easily have the ability to secure most of the stuff you want to, but choose not to. Why? If you didn't want someone to use something, you shouldn't have left it open. It's like taking stuff to a swap meet to give away, and then getting angry that people take it. You could have easily chosen to not put your stuff up there to be reused, so there's a big assumption that stuff you put there is stuff you meant to.

#3. I really don't understand the logic of asking people not to something within the bounds of a license. I know from the software business, if a company asked someone not to do something that they a) wanted to do, and b) had a license to do, you'd just get laughed out of the room, or told that a renegotiation of the contract was needed. Since this problem is pretty obvious to someone looking at the situation from the outside, I don't see why it wasn't apparent from the inside.

I'm not actually interested in either using or building such a wiki, (I use WotC stuff for the vast majority of what I game with) but this conversation interested me because of how loosely people expected the rules of the situation to be applied. You took from the common pot, and are now asking others not to do the same. That just seems a bit irresponsible (esp. considering the small amount of extra effort required to hold off the issue in the first place) and hypocritical (You are asking other people to not mine the resources you opened up the way you did to the ones that were available to you) This is more of a thought agrument to me.

Raymond K. Crum

 

[Yair]

First, feats and classes do not have to be OGC. Mechanics within feats and classes do, but I can close the names and descriptions if I wish. Nothing beyond text that is directly based on the SRD must be open. That means that in a single sentence, sometimes, only a few terms must be open.

That's veering off into a discussion of what is and isn't Derivative Material. The mere act of act of describing what a feat means to a player character ("you are lean and skinny...") is, IMO, a derivative work under copyright law, and hence Derivative Material under the OGL. Especially given case law such as awarding full copyrights over a song for it containing a bit of the prosecuter's other song. But IANAL, and ain't prefectly sure of this.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

That's veering off into a discussion of what is and isn't Derivative Material. The mere act of act of describing what a feat means to a player character ("you are lean and skinny...") is, IMO, a derivative work under copyright law, and hence Derivative Material under the OGL. Especially given case law such as awarding full copyrights over a song for it containing a bit of the prosecuter's other song. But IANAL, and ain't prefectly sure of this.

So, if I put out...

Walk Like An Egyption
Jared struggled through fine, soft sand, the sun beating down on his blistered skin and the dry air raggedly wheezing over chapped and cracked lips. He became aware of the traveller as the man passed him, easily gliding across the clutching sand that pulled Jared knee deep into it's abrasive clutches.
You are able to move across soft sand easily.
Bonus: You retain normal movement speeds over soft sand, disregarding movement penalties.
Special: This feat does not work on quicksand.

You believe you can the whole thing, including flavour text, because that's the way the SRD shows it?

I'd be willing to nod at:
Walk Like An Egyption
Bonus: You retain normal movement speeds over soft sand, disregarding movement penalties.
Special: This feat does not work on quicksand.

as being OGC whether I want it to or not.

But if you're talking about grabbing characters, locations, names, etc, because they are included, I sincerly and strenously disagree.

The way you are talking, I should be able to freely copy Star Wars and hand it out to whomever wants it because the Homeric Epics are Public Source.

 

[Nellisir]

I've said my bit; I'm out of this discussion for good.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

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?

I don't know if any of mine has been used.

Bad Axe Games was nice enough to allow me to use some of thier rules.
RPGObjects was nice enough to allow me usage of some of thier rules.
Monte Cook was nice enough to allow me to reprint some of his work.

Actually, there's a lot more than that.



What I don't like is the idea of: "You wrote using the OGL, so we'll just take it because we want too, and too bad if it took you months of development." that seems to be rapidly propagating.