Where is the Unearthed Arcana SRD?

[Verequus]

Why should OGC be availible for free? It just seems you are making this assumption without reason.

I've misphrased that sentence. I actually mean, that the contributors should accept, that after this period of time their OGC can be made freely available - if they do it or the fans, doesn't matter.

 

[Crothian]

Because the OGL says so.

Which section of the OGL says that the OGC should be released for free?

 

[Halivar]

Which section of the OGL says that the OGC should be released for free?

Taken from OGL v.1.0a, section 4:

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to this License, the Contributers grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

It doesn't say "should be released for free", it says "is released for free." When you slap the OGL on your stuff, you are making the above legal representation to end-users. This is all assuming, of course, that you are careful not to misuse non-OGC IP contributed by the authors.

 

[Pbartender]

Because the OGL says so. It's the rule that applies to all OGC. The OGL is the bible on OGC etiquette, because that's what the court is going to use if you get dragged into it over improper use of copyrighted materials. I also don't think for a second that WotC somehow "missed" that part of the license when they wrote it.

Besides, if it's not free for me to copy, modify, and distribute, then it shouldn't be free for 3rd-party publishers, either. Chances are "end users" do more for the game (from WotC's perspective; e.g. making them money) by inducting new players into the game (who go buy core rulebooks) than most 3rd-party publishers do filling a rack at the gaming store with cruft nobody wants or needs*.

Okay, okay; we can moot this argument. How about this: make up the UA SRD, and sell it for a penny. "Hey! They're publishers; it's okay, now!"

* Glittering generalization. May not apply in some cases. Restrictions may apply. Offer good while supplies last.

Ok, let's make this clear... Nobody missed anything. Nobody said that you CAN'T repackage OGC and give it away for free. Nobody said that you have to be a publisher to use OGC for free.

What some of us said is that it's not very polite to give away for free original material that someone else created, when they are trying to make a living off it... Especially if they've asked you nicely not to.

 

[Halivar]

Ok, let's make this clear... Nobody missed anything. Nobody said that you CAN'T repackage OGC and give it away for free. Nobody said that you have to be a publisher to use OGC for free.

What some of us said is that it's not very polite to give away for free original material that someone else created, when they are trying to make a living off it... Especially if they've asked you nicely not to.

Point taken (though like I said, WotC is hardly a starving publisher, and UA will continue to be a wild sell). The easy solution is for publishers to stop using the OGL for non-SRD derived material, and not to OGL entire books. Doesn't Monte Cook only OGL new game mechanics he introduces? That let's people use and distribute the rules for play purposes without providing incentive for wholesale redistribution.

I, for one, don't see how the almost complete application of the OGL to UA (except the specified WotC IP) squares with the author's request that it not be copied wholesale (a la the SRD). It seems like one hand didn't know what the other hand was doing, to me. If this is the case, WotC should not have placed UA under the OGL (some more interesting licenses have some sort of "grant to scavenge" where only a certain percentage of your material can be derivative; perhaps that would have been a better idea, in this case).

 

[Verequus]

I am surprised, that noone mentioned an opinion on my idea. Good, bad, feasible?

 

[pennywiz]

I don't think people or companies should attempt to socially strongarm other people to get around being held to their end of a contract which they are fully aware of when signing and which they are happy to take advantage of when it suits them.

 

[Pbartender]

Point taken (though like I said, WotC is hardly a starving publisher, and UA will continue to be a wild sell). The easy solution is for publishers to stop using the OGL for non-SRD derived material, and not to OGL entire books. Doesn't Monte Cook only OGL new game mechanics he introduces? That let's people use and distribute the rules for play purposes without providing incentive for wholesale redistribution.

I can hardly disagree with that. As much as I, personally, will respect any publisher's or author's request, I can't help but think that if they were really worried about it, they should have cut back on their OGC.

Although, by the same token, lots of OGC means that when somebody comes up with a great game mechanic it can be spread around.

It's kind of a two edged sword...

I, for one, don't see how the almost complete application of the OGL to UA (except the specified WotC IP) squares with the author's request that it not be copied wholesale (a la the SRD). It seems like one hand didn't know what the other hand was doing, to me. If this is the case, WotC should not have placed UA under the OGL (some more interesting licenses have some sort of "grant to scavenge" where only a certain percentage of your material can be derivative; perhaps that would have been a better idea, in this case).

Myself, I'd be curious to know how WotC decides what to put into the SRD... For example, practically all the sourcebooks for D20 Modern are all included, but very, very few of the D&D sourcebooks are. Why not? How come the D20 Modern Menace book is SRD, but not Monster Manual II or Fiend Folio? How come the Urban Arcana campaign setting is in the SRD, but not Eberron or Forgotten Realms?

 

[thalmin]

Myself, I'd be curious to know how WotC decides what to put into the SRD... For example, practically all the sourcebooks for D20 Modern are all included, but very, very few of the D&D sourcebooks are. Why not? How come the D20 Modern Menace book is SRD, but not Monster Manual II or Fiend Folio? How come the Urban Arcana campaign setting is in the SRD, but not Eberron or Forgotten Realms?

I'm just guessing here, but maybe the authors have retained some rights to the material. Keep in mind, while WotC is not a small, struggling company, not quite all of their writers are millionaires.

 

[Halivar]

Myself, I'd be curious to know how WotC decides what to put into the SRD... For example, practically all the sourcebooks for D20 Modern are all included, but very, very few of the D&D sourcebooks are. Why not? How come the D20 Modern Menace book is SRD, but not Monster Manual II or Fiend Folio? How come the Urban Arcana campaign setting is in the SRD, but not Eberron or Forgotten Realms?

Yeah, I kind of scratch my head over this one, too. My big beefs: two things that would really help world-designers better "plug in" to the existing system and build more content more rapidly: the pantheon and the planes. Every campaign I have been in, except one, uses the "standard" Greyhawk deities from the PHB and the "standard" planes as described in PS/MotP. I would have loved to see this stuff OGL. For one thing, more of the 3PP (3rd-party publisher, if I may coin an acronym, and I think I shall) cruft would fit into my game world, and thus be ripe for purchase by moi.

A pantheon, I can rewrite. But the planes? Some part of me seems to think that, in the end, all D&D campaign roads lead back to the PS multiverse. Take that out, and it doesn't feel like D&D anymore.

But then, I didn't start until 2nd Ed, so I'm somewhat of a n00b.