Permission for OGC?

[NemesisPress]

After reading the enormous thread started by NemesisPress, a question sprang to mind.

Actually, I thought I had started a very tiny thread on an innocuous question!

I guess "asking permission" is not the right word. Because that implies the ability to say no and prevent use. The license OBVIOUSLY doesnt grant that power."

That is a nice, polite statement of the position (one that I wish we had had in the other thread). But there are several problems, even if you don't use the word "permission." One is that the WoTC OGL does not provide any way of tracking specific OGC through multiple generations of reuse - so there would be extreme difficuly in actually doing this.

The second, more important one, is that even informal permission has the potential to open a number of ethical and (a lawyer would probably be able to answer it better than I) potential legal problems - ones that the OGL was specifically designed to avoid in the first place. What happens if permission is given but with certain conditions and then there is a disagreement over whether they are adhered to? What happens if permission is given, but then rescinded or modified? What happens if a publisher is willing to give permission, but only if he/she receives payment or some other consideration or concession?

Even without the potential legal ramifications inherent in this process, larger and/or more influential publishers - if they did not receive their way in these "negotiations" - could retaliate in a number of ways using their influence in the industry.

Finally, just what is the chance of negotiations like this working out? It seems that it is difficult enough to even have polite discussion on these kinds of topics.

These are exactly the reasons the OGL was created. The OGL clearly puts the responsibility on the publisher of the OGC to use it responsibly and with forethought. Anything else just muddies the waters. (Clarifying Product Identity issues are a separate problem and a valid reason to correspond with the originator - as is thanking them - which would be polite.)

One good thing did come out of that thread: take a moment and drop by the new site for the Association of OGL Publishers - a trade organization open to anyone interested in publishing OGL games.

Be sure to click on Community and take part in the message board discussions. To post you have to register with EZBoard. (And let me know you have any any screen refresh problems after posting.) We need interested parties to volunteer for temporary officer positions until elections can be held.

www.oglpublishers.org

 

[Telgian]

Greetings,

NemesisPress: I'm afraid at this point in time I am not intrested in your organisation.

You may wish to re-position the "TM" in your logo. I find the context is somewhat ambiguous (ie. I'm not certain what the TM is attached to: OGL, or the portion of the name up to that point.)
That said, IANAL.

Regards,
Telgian.

 

[NemesisPress]

Well it's not my organization. Once there is a large-enough, stabilized membership we'll have elections. And then it's their organization.

It's open to anyone who's interested in OGL issues and doesn't try to subvert them.

It's for any company that publishes under the OGL license and doesn't have the resources to know and do everthing themselves as well as they would like.

 

[Orcus]

I think the "organization" you propose is so complex as to be unusable. Heck, it is more hierarchical and has more positions than most d20 companies.

If you want to succeed, you should try to streamline it a bit. Dont have so many "positions". Just have members. Just my suggestion. Of course, even though I am helping I'm sure someone will suggest I am somehow subverting things.

Clark

 

[Mynex]

Software - how do you see it fitting in?

I think the "organization" you propose is so complex as to be unusable. Heck, it is more hierarchical and has more positions than most d20 companies.

If you want to succeed, you should try to streamline it a bit. Dont have so many "positions". Just have members. Just my suggestion. Of course, even though I am helping I'm sure someone will suggest I am somehow subverting things.

Clark

You subverter you!

But my question is serious in nature.

Software and OGL compliance, How does everyone see this working together peacefully?

I can only answer from the side of working on PCGen. Everyone except for 2 publishers that I have contacted has been fully supportive of our efforts to be an all inclusive character Generator.

Many have even given PI permission for names and the 1 line description for feats (which is the extent of ANY descriptions we give for anything). it's a bit hard to generate a character if you don't have the correct name for something! and making up names defeats the purpose of PCGen, so that's not an option.

No we do not publish the material in books or electronic format, no we do not make the software so you don't need the books, in fact we strive to make it so you HAVE to have the book.

Are we perfect? No, we make mistakes, we have included stuff that was PI on accident, but we've strived to make it right as soon as we notice it. None of the publishers we have included in our alpha/beta releases have ever raised issue with us (that I am aware of) and if they did, _I_ would correct it on the spot!

I will soon be a publisher/published myself, and I plan on having most of my material OGC for re-use (I'd like to think I have a useful idea or 3 ), and I plan on having it all in PCGen, but I will still have a number of things PI.

My concern would be other software out there that is fan created, that provides full information on items/abilities/classes/etc...

How do you apply the OGL to that?

I mean, Wizards can do whatever they like with their material and E-Tools, but everyone knows that fans will make plugins for E-tools, and 3rd pary d20 publishers will start seeing their stuff appearing for downloads as 'software' which isn't covered yet (as far as I know) by the OGL?

Are there any groups already in place to address Software and OGL issues?

 

[Orcus]

We've all been over and over the software issue. Even Ryan Dancey. The simple fact is that the OGL is just not very software friendly.

Clark

 

[Mynex]

We've all been over and over the software issue. Even Ryan Dancey. The simple fact is that the OGL is just not very software friendly.

Clark

Okay fine, so where's the threads so I can read them?

Sorry, but I haven't been over them, and every time I ask about them, I get exactly the response above.

 

[EricNoah]

I'd suggest the mailing list archives at the open gaming foundation.

Actually, I'd head to google.com and search for "software" only on the www.opengamingfoundation.org domain.

http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en

 

[Mynex]

I'd suggest the mailing list archives at the open gaming foundation.

Actually, I'd head to google.com and search for "software" only on the www.opengamingfoundation.org domain.

http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en

Ah, thank you Eric.

See you at GenCon!

 

[Orcus]

Mynex-

I would suggest you sign up for those lists. They have been a bit quiet recently, but that is where most of the hardcore discussion of license issues takes place. Of course, that may be a reason NOT to sign up It does get a bit repetitive. But the archives are great.

Clark