Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orcus" data-source="post: 1129143" data-attributes="member: 1254">I caught that problem in Dragon and I advised the guys at Paizo of the mistake. Eric Mona advised me they printed a correction based on my suggestion, which is good. But it brings up the problem of using second hand OGC. You run the risk that the first reuser is doing it right--which in this case Dragon didnt.As for Monte's OGC, I think we need to consider a few things.First, as for altering the d20 STL to require including an OGC document, I think most major publishers would just abandon the d20 STL if they did that. There is sort of a problem with some companies republishing other people's OGC whole cloth in "compendiums" which quickly renders your product not marketable. That is a bad thing. Remember, the market forces that make it good for WotC to release OGC is not the same for the small publisher. We create a network externality effect for WotC. Reuse of OGC has not, in the three years of d20 so far, created more than a handful of similar sales for third party publishers.Second, unlike you or I, Monte has some very valuable PI that he really needs to protect. Monte is the Gygax of 3E and he needs to be really careful with protecting his PI. Blizzard might license his PI from HIM, though they will never care what we do. That leads him to use a more restrictive (though still appropriate) designation. I had to do the same with Necropolis and our Judges Guild stuff, which is content that doesnt belong to me. It is stuff I was using under license. So those designations are as tight and restrictive as I can make them because they had to be that way.Third, the different font thing is really letting the tail wag the dog. Only 1% of users (or less) care about the OGC designations or even know what they are. You dont make annoying layout decisions to please the 1% of purchasers if it bothers the other 99%. I have yet to see a "designation by layout" method that I didnt find intrusive, which is why I also dont use it. As another matter, that is usually actually a bad way to designate OGC because if you miss some, you are in violation of the license. So in short, different publishers have different reasons for doing their designations like they do. It is easier to make your product 100% OGC if you know that no one will ever come trying to get a license from you to use that content. On the flip side, if you have valuable content or content you yourself are using under license, you have to basically craft the most restrictive designation possible because you dont have the right to open up any more than is required.I've done products that were super tight (Judges Guild) and products that were basically 100% OGC and included instructions showing people how to reuse the OGC. So it varies by publisher and by product.Clark</blockquote>

Verification