Using, misusing, and releasing OGC

[RangerWickett]

Dudes, chill. Both sides are being a little personal here. I think it'd be best if we closed this thread; then if NemesisPress wants to try to re-open the discussion, he can start with a clean slate, one question at a time.

Honestly, I read through this thread, and all I really got out of it was that people don't agree whether it is important to let someone know if you're going to be using the stuff they came up with.

Quote from the first post:
How should a publisher best (and ethically) make use of OGC? How much extant OGC is appropriate/necessary to use in your works. How much of your work is necessary to mark as OGC in order for it to be marketable? When is OGC fair game for unrestricted use? And what factors do you take into consideration when making this decision? (Genre, competing products, quality, quantity, etc.)

As always, do whatever is appropriate for your product, while trying not to piss off anyone in the process.

 

[NemesisPress]

Re: Having already started the journey...

Regarding using other people's OGC... yeah, we dropped them an e-mail. Why use their stuff? Why send a courtesy letter when the use of OGC material requires no notification?
1) Its a chance to say "hi" to them, as well as say "we like your stuff"
2) We want to give them credit. (Unless a person's just a jerk, who would want to pretend they wrote something that they didn't?)
3) Its a chance for them to get credit for it in a manner of their liking (i.e., "please tell us how you would like to be credited").
4) Not crediting someone would piss them off. Not discussing OGC concerns, no legal action, just peeved. (And what non-jerk wants that, either?)
5) Its just the right thing to do. You'd want someone to drop you a line and tell you if they were reprinting YOUR OGC material, wouldn't you?

Thanks for a polite and considered post. I agree with every one of your above points (and already stated most of them). But I can't help notice that at no time do you say that you "asked permission." That was my sole point.

As for a "size doesn't matter" trade organization, I think this thread makes it clear that there is a "difference in perspective" (to be polite) between the larger, established companies and the smaller ones. It may be that the larger companies would not even see the need to join such an organization - but there would need to be a level playing field for all; otherwise we would just duplicate the existing power structure in the market.

(And it's amazing how sarcasm just seems to vanish completely when not needed.)

 

[Morrus]

Re: Re: Having already started the journey...

I think this thread makes it clear that there is a "difference in perspective" (to be polite) between the larger, established companies and the smaller ones.

No. It shows exactly the opposite. I'm about as small as they get. Clark is about as established as they get (at least in this tiny industry). Yet, strangely, we agree.

 

[NemesisPress]

So now you want to join my organization? I think we'll just have to wait and see about that.

 

[oathbrothers]

Asking permission

But I can't help notice that at no time do you say that you "asked permission." That was my sole point.

I didn't mention "asking permission" because you don't ask permission. Looking back over the thread, I'm not quite sure if anybody has even taken the position that "asking permission" is required. Simply put, whether someone takes on the label of being "big", "small", "good-old-boy", or "revolutionary" or whatever...they're all sending each other friendly courtesy letters regarding OGC usage. And that's pretty close to "community" in my book.

(Also, giving some clue as to what you're thinking about publishing with "Nemesis Press" would lend nore credibility to your posts. Just a thought.)

Will "Liu Bei" Russell
Oath Brothers

 

[Morrus]

So now you want to join my organization? I think we'll just have to wait and see about that.

Well, if there were such an organisation, I'd rather it weren't run by someone who needed to ask "How much OGC is necessary to use in your works?"

I mean, c'mon. I'm not trying to be nasty here (yes, I've been baiting you earlier in the thread), but when someone who obviously hasn't read the license tries to tell me what its purpose is, I'm going to take it with a grain of salt.

I have to tell you this: You are wrong about your perception of the reasons for the existence of the OGL. Wrong. Not in an opinion/relative sense, but in an absolute, factual sense. The reasons for its creation have been explained many times by its creator (that'll be Ryan Dancey). It's been repeated by Clark Peterson who was around through that process. Even Monte Cook has chimed in. You remember who he is?

There's no "Light" for you to bring to the uninformed masses. There's no "revolution" waiting to happen (I mean, don't you feel a bit silly just using that word?). You came here and asked people their opinion, and when qualified people gave it you stood up and said "You Are Wrong!". You even started telling us that we didn't know what the license was about. If you know better, if you're such an expert on the license (the answer to your first question is 5%, by the way), why did you ask in the first place? It seems to me that you were looking for an argument or that you had a soap box you were just dying to stand on. And yes, I admit that I (wrongly) spent a while poking fun at and aggravating you - but you weren't interested in what I or anyone else had to say anyway.

 

[smetzger]

I have to tell you this: You are wrong about your perception of the reasons for the existence of the OGL. Wrong. Not in an opinion/relative sense, but in an absolute, factual sense. The reasons for its creation have been explained many times by its creator (that'll be Ryan Dancey). It's been repeated by Clark Peterson who was around through that process. Even Monte Cook has chimed in. You remember who he is?

As far as I know the only purpose of the OGL and d20 licenses was to allow 3rd parties to use the D&D rules, make there own extensions to those rules, and thus drive the sales of the PHB. Its only money making intent was for WOTC.

However, the OGL is based or draws its inspiration from the GNU license. The GNU license has at its core the free distribution of software. The ability to freely redistribute OGL and OGC exists. It is only a matter of time before someone redistributes a vast amount of OGC/OGL via the internet. Publishers will have to deal with it. Do they ignore it, attack it, embrace it, reduce the amount of OGC they produce, increase the amount of OGC they produce. Keep in mind that WOTC has released for free the SRD and I think its helped the sales of the 3 core books. They didn't need to do this, they could have just marked what was OGC in their books or could have sold the SRD as a separate book.

As far as 'getting permission' goes, I think that is unnecessary (I know Morrus disagrees with this). However, a notification email would be nice. I do feel that it would be polite to link the product name to the specific OGC (The OGL only specifies that you put the copyright holder in section 15, you don't even have to mention what product it came from).

Finding your OGC material in an OGC archive is alot better than finding your whole product on Kazaa. My hope is that such an archive would reduce the amount of pirating on Kazaa and will help increase the sales of high quality products.

*:> Scott

 

[Morrus]

As far as I know the only purpose of the OGL and d20 licenses was to allow 3rd parties to use the D&D rules, make there own extensions to those rules, and thus drive the sales of the PHB. Its only money making intent was for WOTC.

Yeah. More specifically - it was to shift the support products from WotC (for whom it wasn't particularly pofitable) to small press publishers (to whom it is profitable). That's why you don't see hundreds of adventures coming from WotC (like what happened back in the TSR days).

And, of course, those support products are what support and drive sales of the core books, as you pointed out.

Any altruistic "freedom of information" effect was purely incidentally - a side effect. WotC weren't trying to make a statement. They don't support free distribution of materials (although they don't actively oppose it, as long as it's done within the license).

Actually, from what I hear more and more often these days, as a whole WotC doesn't support the d20 STL or the OGL at all these days. The number of people there who believe it's a good thing are getting fewer and fewer. Personally (and there are far more qualified people than me about, so they should feel free to correct me) I feel that that's a mistake on their part. But then, they don't come to me for advice!

Luckily, the OGL can't be revoked (although the STL can). So the content will remain, although the logo could theoretically disappear. Hopefully, if that ever happens, WotC will have approved much more of the SRD than they have at present.

I'm pretty sure Anthony Valterra is a supporter. Which is good.

 

[smetzger]

Luckily, the OGL can't be revoked (although the STL can). So the content will remain, although the logo could theoretically disappear. Hopefully, if that ever happens, WotC will have approved much more of the SRD than they have at present.

Yup, and this is gonna make it difficult for a 4e to ever immerge. 4e is gonna have to be a large step beyond 3e, like the step from 2e to 3e; I don't think a step similare to 1e->2e will be big enough. In addition d20 or something similar is gonna have to be offered (d21 ) . Otherwise there will be more support for 3e than 4e and people will not buy 4e.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The OGL only specifies that you put the copyright holder in section 15, you don't even have to mention what product it came from.

Actually, it specifies that you must use the copyright notice from the original Section 15 in its entirety, unchanged.

My copyright notice reads, "Heroes of High Favor: Dwarves, copyright 2002 Benjamin R. Durbin, published by Bad Axe Games, LLC."

Or something like that. So I'll get my props-- product, author, publisher.


Wulf