Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 4028050" data-attributes="member: 8461">A 4E-style OGL work would serve a purpose too - to allow for 4E-compatible products that otherwise can't be published under the GSL. Likewise, there'd be no need for such a work if the GSL didn't have the restrictions that it has.It's fallacious to suggest that only publishers who want to pay the license fee are the "truly professional ones." There are many who simply can't afford it. Similarly, there are plenty of publishers who want to make complementary (not complimentary, though I'm sure they'd want to do that too  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) and supplementary D&D products, but can't because they wouldn't meet the nebulous "community decency" clause, or because they want to make something that isn't medieval fantasy, but are bound to refer to the PHB.All businesses, and people involved in business, want to make money. But that doesn't have anything to do with having their derivative works being reused, necessarily. We don't know that the GSL won't have clauses about Open Game Content, and such a feature was a high point in the OGL.Actually, it's wrong to say "a lot" of people exploited the OGL. Almost no one did; there were just a few individuals who republished large tracts of OGC. That aside, people who created alternate PHBs weren't necessarily exploitive. They were also just operating from a business standpoint; it's easier to market their books as not needing another book to be used.Far more people purchased those books than used the OGC-derivatives. Some revenue was lost, yes, but the purpose of the Open Gaming License was to put the materials out there for ease of use without making money the primary concern. In some cases some people took this to an extreme that was frowned upon, but that isn't a reason to scrap the entire system. There is also a happy medium between a book being 100% Open and a book that uses "crippled content." Most books in the d20/OGL community do a good job of finding this medium. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it quite a bit. Likewise, the existing OGL already has provisions to allow publishers to protect themselves from this type of behavior. There are guidelines for declaring aspects of books PI, which protect the contents of the works just fine.I disagree. First, I don't think anything can really be "too open," unless it poses some sort of danger to the public (I certainly wouldn't want to see the guidelines for how to make nuclear bombs available online, for example). Regarding people who want a "free lunch," who wouldn't take something that's freely and legally offered? Similarly, the publishers know what they're doing when they release something to be 100% OGC. If they offer it for free reproduction, my sympathy for them is somewhat mitigated when someone reproduces it free online. There is a way to make things OGC in a manner that belies legally cut-and-pasting the entire book.I have no doubt it will be embraced, but I don't think that anyone will be particularly rejoicing over its having additional restrictions; those restrictions might not be particularly reviled, but I personally don't think the publishers are cheering for having these additional restrictions added to the GSL - especially since we've yet to see any particular restrictions around open content, and the reproduction of open content (since that's what you seem to be talking about).As it stands now (so far as I know) there's nothing to stop a publisher from making a 100% open book under the GSL.Actually, total control over your own game would entail not using any sort of open-license system at all, which includes the OGL and GSL.  The OGL unto itself encourages the creature of new rules; doing so does support it.I don't understand the idea of "playing 3E because of the OGL." Are you saying that if 3E had no OGL, people shouldn't play it at all?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> I don't know much about Richard Stallman, so I can't really comment on that, but there's nothing "moral" in what you're advocating. You're advocating good business sense, which is removed entirely from morality.I think that open content is the moral stance, because it doesn't concern itself with business practices. When something is open, the creator gives it to anyone who wants it, free of all restrictions and restraints - which include asking for money for it - no matter what the product is. Whether it's a game or an appliance or a medicine, letting people have it as they want it, without being concerned with how much profit is in it for you, is (I think) a moral stance.The GSL might be good from a business sense; I don't know, since I'm not a businessman. But I personally don't like that it imposes additional restrictions, compared to the OGL, so that WotC and other publishers can maximize their profits. I'm personally more concerned with keeping the game open to as many people as possible, without putting profitability into the equation. I have that luxury because my finances don't depend on making money from the game.I don't think the two necessarily have to work at cross-purposes though. I think that you can have open content (in a game, at least) and still be able to turn a profit with it. I just think that the OGL is the best example we've seen of that.Unless what you want to make falls under its restricted terms. In that case, such a person has no recourse to legally publish what they want to make (they can put it out as a for-free netbook or similar work, but even that's technically illegal).Games aren't books, so they can copyright everything that isn't part of the rules already, but as you said, that's an aside.The OGL isn't meant to be "an excuse" or "a shield," as it's quite forward in serving its purpose: to make the mechanics published under it usable by anyone, free from restrictions.Fair enough. I personally would take a shining view of anyone who makes a 4E-compatible OGL product. I do hope Wizards would try to make an example of them, though, because such efforts would likely fail, helping to legitimize such activities further.</blockquote>

Verification