What happens to OGC which violates OGL?

[Gez]

It would be a good thing, I think, if publishers were required to issue a copy of their open content to the open gaming foundation. These mini-SRD (sourcebook reference document) would contain all OGC and only OGC from books published under the d20 STL.

They would also be required to provide usable OGC. In extenso, no unnammed item, feat, spell, or creature. It's very possible to preserve IP that way (just look at WotC that's simply changing leomund's secure shelter to secure shelter). It would prevent quid pro quo like these.

 

[jmucchiello]

It would be a good thing, I think, if publishers were required to issue a copy of their open content to the open gaming foundation. These mini-SRD (sourcebook reference document) would contain all OGC and only OGC from books published under the d20 STL.

This adds costs to making RPG supplements that do not have any return for the publisher. He needs to prepare two documents: One for the printer (pdf) and one for the foundation. This increases the cost of paying the editor. I would bet that less OGC would be released if this were the case.

 

[Gez]

On the other hand, it would make re-using OGC much easier and thus reduce costs when your product isn't 100% new.

Most of the OGC document would be mere cut'n'paste, with occasionally some name changes. For companies that are already clearly indicating what's OGC and what isn't in their books (using font and background changes), that would be really easy to do (a simple filtering of text with the proper settings).

 

[jmucchiello]

On the other hand, it would make re-using OGC much easier and thus reduce costs when your product isn't 100% new.

Why include the OGC when you can just reference it on the website? I'd be less likely to buy reprinted OGC if it was readily available on a website. I would rather buy a book with more new content. Then the vicious cycle kicks in: with more new content, more of the book ends up on the website, so more of the book is readily available, so why even buy the initial print of the OGC when I can just download it.

Cut'n'paste and such is not a zero-time operation. You still need to go through both documents and make sure you didn't include anything you didn't intent to nor forget anything that could get you into legal trouble. Time is money.

I may not be the perfect case though. I give away all my content as OGC. I would have to stop that if it all had to end up on a website. I also don't reuse OGC since I would prefer that my products were also 100% new material whenever possible. I prefer my customers get as much bang for their buck as possible. They can combine my work with whatever other products they already own far better than I can combine my work with what few other works I own.

Most of the OGC document would be mere cut'n'paste, with occasionally some name changes. For companies that are already clearly indicating what's OGC and what isn't in their books (using font and background changes), that would be really easy to do (a simple filtering of text with the proper settings).

And the publishers who like to make it hard to get at their OGC would just drop the d20 logo. The requirement would not accomplish much.

 

[philreed]

It would be a good thing, I think, if publishers were required to issue a copy of their open content to the open gaming foundation. These mini-SRD (sourcebook reference document) would contain all OGC and only OGC from books published under the d20 STL.

So why would someone buy my PDFs? The D20 PDFs I've written have been released as 100% OGC. If I gave away the text (as RTF or whatever) there would be no reason for people to buy my PDFs.

And what about Bastion? Lots of OGC. Green Ronin? Same. Bad Axe? Same.

OGC should be clearly declared but that doesn't mean it has to be given away.

 

[Nellisir]

So why would someone buy my PDFs? The D20 PDFs I've written have been released as 100% OGC. If I gave away the text (as RTF or whatever) there would be no reason for people to buy my PDFs.

Ditto. I like the IDEA of creating a Darkwater Press SRD, but if my products are 99% open anyways, creating a free SRD means I'm competing with myself. pdf file(s) with art and layout, or free rtf file with no art and minimal layout.

I'm a cheap bastard. I know which one I would take.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[HellHound]

I DO buy AEG, which has a very nice, very neat, very inclusive declaration, AND a limited license allowing others to use PI within the context of an OGC "goodie" (feat, spell, item...).

Hmmm... Unfortunately the AEG section 15's are also prone to error.

Take for example the book FEATS, by Jeff Ibach. (PS: I love this book).

Look at the section 15, I can list a pile of misrepresented listings in that book -without- pulling out the original books to double check.

For Example:

Librum Equitis, Copyright 2002, Mystic Eye Games
A Complete Guide to Drow, Copyright 2002, Goodman Games

The first is supposed to be a reference to Librum Equitis volume 1, which has a different copyright designation in the section 15 than what is listed here (and which includes other amterial in the section 15 which is NOT represented in the AEG section 15).

 

[Nellisir]

Hmmm... Unfortunately the AEG section 15's are also prone to error.

Compare and contrast: AEG compliance and accessibility of open content vs Malhavok press vs WotC.

S.15's, at least, can backtracked and corrected (IANAL, but if it's wrong to begin with, the mandate to reproduce exactly is lessened, provided one is correcting, not excluding).

That said, it's an opinion call. You could exclude every publisher that ever erred on a S.15. I'm not sure that leaves alot of publishers. Or you can attempt to correct. Or you can reproduce as is, and leave it to the publishers that were excluded or neglected to contact you and request a correction.

Regardless, it's still more useable than closed content.

Gotta run
Nell.