Nyarlathotep
Explorer
While I appreciate the fact that WotC doesn't want people posting the content for free on the Internet, they shouldn't have made the book OGC if they didn't want people doing that.
Where is the Unearthed Arcana SRD?
- Thread starter Verequus
- Start date
Nyarlathotep
Explorer
Crothian said:
Yes. Exactly. Couldn't be more correct. There should never be another book published again.*
/sarcasm
*I'll explain my thoughts (minus my snide comments) when I get off of work a little later.
Nyarlathotep
Explorer
Done work, so allow me to elaborate.
Caveat: I'm not an expert on the OGL or OGC content.
As I understand it, OGC allows another company or person to use another company's rules/text (not in the plagurism sense) as long as it is properly accredited in the OGL/Section 15. This, obviously, is a good thing. That said, if a company is going to publish OGC content, they should be prepared for the fact that end-users are going to want to use it, as well as publishers.
Why shouldn't end-users be able to use it and post it (as long as it meets the requirements in the OGL)? By publishing all (?) of the rules in Unearthed Arcana as OGC, WotC has pretty much given the okay for it to be used like any other OGC. What difference does it make if it's for a publisher or an end user? To me it seems like publishers want it both ways. "Yes we want OGC, but only for us to use, not you". In my mind it's a little too late now to go back and say "Well, we didn't mean for it to be used like that".
Perhaps this is a flaw in the OGL, or perhaps it's the Law of Unintended Consequences rearing it's ugly head. In either case, if a company is going to publish OGC, they shouldn't complain* (outside their offices) when people use that OGC (to post in an SRD-style document, for example). They can be unhappy, they can wish people wouldn't do it, but frankly I think they might be better served to say "No, this is Closed Content" and then this whole thing is a moot issue.
What if a company published the UA OGC as a PDF document for sale? Would it be okay then? Now what if they offered it for free to their customers? Is it now "not okay"? Could a private individual publish the OGC from UA and charge money for it? What if they gave it away for free? This is no different than the many SRD's available for purchase out there (I recommend CMG's BTW).
<Accusatory paragraph removed. Apologies to Crothian>
I'm not sure if this is making any sense or not. My apolgies if it doesn't. My only excuse is that I'm on day 5 of quitting smoking and am about ready to (in the words of Rex Banner) kill anyone who looks at me cross-eyed.
*I'm using this as a turn of phrase, I don't mean it to sound like I think that publishers are money-grubbing weasels, who sit in their solid gold office blocks complaining about gamers like us**.
** Were I talking about politicians and Corporate CEO then I would mean it to sound that way.
Caveat: I'm not an expert on the OGL or OGC content.
As I understand it, OGC allows another company or person to use another company's rules/text (not in the plagurism sense) as long as it is properly accredited in the OGL/Section 15. This, obviously, is a good thing. That said, if a company is going to publish OGC content, they should be prepared for the fact that end-users are going to want to use it, as well as publishers.
Why shouldn't end-users be able to use it and post it (as long as it meets the requirements in the OGL)? By publishing all (?) of the rules in Unearthed Arcana as OGC, WotC has pretty much given the okay for it to be used like any other OGC. What difference does it make if it's for a publisher or an end user? To me it seems like publishers want it both ways. "Yes we want OGC, but only for us to use, not you". In my mind it's a little too late now to go back and say "Well, we didn't mean for it to be used like that".
Perhaps this is a flaw in the OGL, or perhaps it's the Law of Unintended Consequences rearing it's ugly head. In either case, if a company is going to publish OGC, they shouldn't complain* (outside their offices) when people use that OGC (to post in an SRD-style document, for example). They can be unhappy, they can wish people wouldn't do it, but frankly I think they might be better served to say "No, this is Closed Content" and then this whole thing is a moot issue.
What if a company published the UA OGC as a PDF document for sale? Would it be okay then? Now what if they offered it for free to their customers? Is it now "not okay"? Could a private individual publish the OGC from UA and charge money for it? What if they gave it away for free? This is no different than the many SRD's available for purchase out there (I recommend CMG's BTW).
<Accusatory paragraph removed. Apologies to Crothian>
I'm not sure if this is making any sense or not. My apolgies if it doesn't. My only excuse is that I'm on day 5 of quitting smoking and am about ready to (in the words of Rex Banner) kill anyone who looks at me cross-eyed.
*I'm using this as a turn of phrase, I don't mean it to sound like I think that publishers are money-grubbing weasels, who sit in their solid gold office blocks complaining about gamers like us**.
** Were I talking about politicians and Corporate CEO then I would mean it to sound that way.
Last edited:
Crothian
First Post
Nyarlathotep said:
It wasn't an attempt to link you to some sort of anti erd person publishing. You stated if wizards didn't want people to do this they shouldn't make their books OGL. THird part publishers who use the OGL have to make part of their books open content. So, if they would follow the advice you give wizards, they would have to completely stop publisghing d20 material. It was not a cheap shot at you, it was a simple logical step.
Nyarlathotep
Explorer
Except that I said OGC and not OGL.
Nyarlathotep
Explorer
My mistake then, I'll go back and edit out the last paragraph. My apologies. 
Isn't there a more embarresed looking smilie?
Isn't there a more embarresed looking smilie?
Last edited:
Ranger REG
Explorer
Don't take this the wrong way but ... you're too spoiled with convenience.BardStephenFox said:
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
Do you have that same expectation for third-party d20 products from third-party d20 pubishers as you would have from products from WotC?
As philreed stated earlier, the OGC and OGL is for content-sharing among publishers, much like the GPL regulate sharing computer codes among programmers.
Get a scanner.
Similar Threads
