Why I only buy open content

[JBowtie]

Unfortunately, referring to a product directly is viewed by some as challenging the trademark. Even if that is not your intent. And if the product is not covered by a special agreement allowing the design and publication of compatible material, then matters get even worse.

I prefer our laws - we take intent into consideration. No offence intended.

But, under the law you have to treat everybody the same. You can't selectively enforce your rights.

That's a good thing. There'd be too much room for discrimination and such otherwise.

It was this case, and TSR's suit against Gygax and GDW regarding Dangerous Journeys that resulted in the finding that game mechanics cannot be copyrighted. Patented, but not copyrighted. This played a big role in the establishment of the Open Game License and Open Game Content.

Hmmm, I didn't realise US law had that precedent, or that it was a factor in establishing the OGL. Need to meditate on that one.

I think one the things Wizards did that has set up certain expectations (mine included) is they made two marks. The d20 mark was set up as a compatibility mark, while the D+D trademark was heavily guarded to prevent association with the wrong crowd.

That sort of approach sort of splits the difference; they have a mark that others can use without having to file off the serial numbers (with extra conditions set to give them some control, more than they would get by default), and they have a special quality mark they use for their "real" branding. Yet no one else seems to have followed this lead. Maybe that's the real reason that d20 still has the lion's share of the market.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I don't worry about open content as I'm just a scmuck playing a game and enjoying a few hours a week of my friends time in make believe land.

 

[Nellisir]

JB - I totally understand where you're coming from, and I totally agree. OGC plays an ever-increasing role in my purchases -- and that, for instance, has severely dampened my desire for Malhavoc products (and WotC, for that matter).

AEG, on the other hand, had a wonderful declaration and a wonderful policy. I'm bummed they've (essentially) gone out of the d20 market. Their OGC has made my (non-oriental) setting infinitely better. Green Ronin is incredible too.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Monte At Home]

The entirety of AU/AE is available for use via a free license as mentioned on page 430 of AE or 254 of AU, but yeah, you have to contact us to get it. Really, though, we're not so scary.

 

[JoeGKushner]

The entirety of AU/AE is available for use via a free license as mentioned on page 430 of AE or 254 of AU, but yeah, you have to contact us to get it. Really, though, we're not so scary.

I don't think the op point was that you were scary. Just that there was some nebulous effort on his part that made it not worth the purchase.

 

[JBowtie]

The entirety of AU/AE is available for use via a free license as mentioned on page 430 of AE or 254 of AU, but yeah, you have to contact us to get it. Really, though, we're not so scary.

I imagine that there are circumstances in which you'd say no, correct? Because otherwise you could just publish the license itself in the book vis-a-vis the d20 license and people would still have to comply.

The fact that I don't know the circumstances under which you would say no means I have to face the possibility of rejection - something I simply don't face with the OGL or d20 licenses. Is it any wonder I prefer the latter?

As an artist, I have two options:
Build, then ask. If told no, I have just invested time and material in something that I can't show to strangers (legally). Don't assume my family cares.
Ask, then build. My muse may have fled by the time permission comes. The permission may attach conditions that make what I wanted to achieve impossible.

Either way there's a cost to me creatively.

Business-wise, you guys are generous and hard-working and entirely reasonable. I'm just saying that your commerce function does in fact affect your art function. I'm saying that for me there are no limits when I don't need permission and a banking of the creative fires when I do.

It's not that there is effort involved, as Joe seems to think. It's that having to appeal to a higher authority to show people what I've created rubs me entirely the wrong way and kills my passions. It means I'm not free to share what I've done without prior approval. Even if that approval is easy to get/likely to get. There *is* a cost to me, and it affects what I create. I'm willing to put in a ton of effort, so long as I can do so on my own terms rather than kowtowing to someone else's sensibilities.

It's sort of like how some people *can't* work for others, they simply are horrible employees because they have to be the ones setting the rules. I can do that, but my muse simply abandons me when I need another's approval to create/publish it. That's why I don't work as a freelancer and never will (this is a new insight for me); because someone else gets to decide if what I do ever sees the light of day. I can't handle that - I need to be the one who decides if the world will see my art.

 

[Nellisir]

The entirety of AU/AE is available for use via a free license as mentioned on page 430 of AE or 254 of AU, but yeah, you have to contact us to get it. Really, though, we're not so scary.

Hey Monte. I can't speak for JB or anyone else, but I did contact you, and you weren't scary. Much.

But the license didn't grant the mechanic X I was interested in, except as a sort of adjunct to a larger (and very generous) grant, and an email to you confirmed that while the concept of mechanic X was OGC, the specific implementations were not.

The specifics, in this case, formed a sort of basic foundation that I felt I would have to recreate, but without actually looking at your work. Frankly, it was a bit dicier legally than I wanted to try.

Ironically, something very similar has happened with a mechanic in Iron Heros.

You certainly have the right to protect your work as you see fit -- I absolutely don't dispute that -- and I don't even think you're wrong to do so. But I didn't buy MCPAE: Transcendence because of it.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Monte At Home]

But the license didn't grant the mechanic X I was interested in, except as a sort of adjunct to a larger (and very generous) grant

Sure it does. It grants everything. I imagine that's what you're saying, though--it's an all or nothing (at least as far as non-OGC goes) kind of thing. You didn't want the whole thing, just one.

All that said (and I'm sorry if this is harsh), making other publishers happy ultimately isn't really all that important to me. I'm sure I'll get blasted for saying this--I certainly have here and on other forums as well--but I don't give a moment's concern to other publishers when creating a product. At every step of the way, every word I write, I think about players and DMs. But never other publishers.

Now, I'm pretty certain that the guys at Fiery Dragon, Necromancer, Goodman, Skeleton Key, Blue Devil, and others would tell you that we do work with other publishers and that we're actually pretty darn generous, and easy--maybe even fun--to work with. But in the end I'm in this to create cool products for gamers, not to make things easier or better for other publishers. (If I can do that to, it's simply icing on the cake.)

I imagine that there are circumstances in which you'd say no, correct?

Correct. If someone wanted to make a book called Babyraping using Arcana Evolved rules, I'd say no. Seriously--that's why the approval process is there. To weed out the stuff we'd be terrified to be associated with. Because using that particular license links us to the new product in ways that the OGL doesn't. (Also, in the rare case that someone's already using the license to create something exactly like what you're proposing.)

It's that having to appeal to a higher authority to show people what I've created rubs me entirely the wrong way and kills my passions.

(Again, here's me being harsh, but I've been doing this for 17 years, so I apologize.) This is either something you're going to have to learn to deal with in the long run, or learn to accept that you're just creating stuff for your friends and family.

I'm a creative prima donna. I don't want to have others impinging on my creativity. I left Wizards so I could have creative freedom. While I was there, I was the outspoken advocate for the value of the creative people on the staff. I'm often mouthing off on various industry forums and lists about how the industry should pay writers more. I let freelance authors who work for Malhavoc retain their own copyrights when possible, and we have some of the highest rates for writing, editing and even art in the rpg industry (lower than WotC, but that might be about it). I'm all about creative freedom and creative spirit. But (and you knew there was going to be a "but") the creative opportunities available to you are so limited to be almost zero if even sending someone an email regarding your work drains your passions. Harsh, but true. If nothing else, you've got to be able, at least, to work with a skilled editor. (And believe me, every writer should think of his editor as a "higher authority.")

And in a larger sense, if you're going to publish your stuff, you learn very quickly that the readers and users of your material are the real higher authority and you have to constantly appeal and answer to them. Constantly.

I do sincerely wish you luck in your creative endeavors, and I'm happy that you value them.

 

[D_Sinclair]

Hmmm, I didn't realise US law had that precedent, or that it was a factor in establishing the OGL. Need to meditate on that one.

Actually, the precedent was set many decades ago in an era where Parker Bros. was so litiginous that they made the waves of TSR threats of lawsuits look like a dribble compared to a flood. The Dangerous Journeys case was simply a reinforcement of existing precedent.

 

[JBowtie]

This is either something you're going to have to learn to deal with in the long run, or learn to accept that you're just creating stuff for your friends and family.

I might have believed that before. But I've spent the last five years totally immersed in the free software world, debating a wide variety of "open" licenses, and I don't believe that.

In that world, I'm building on other people's IP all the time. Constantly. And I can take what they've done, change it to my liking and show the world. No need to consult the original author(s) or anyone else. I have done and am doing and never once do I have to consult anyone. Just this year I ported a software package to Windows without a by your leave, making all kinds of changes without consultation. I loved it.

With the OGL, I have similar freedoms. Have exercised them, even if I'm not widely distributing at the moment. So I can go off and build stuff without a by your leave, and do so, and show it to whoever I want - like the thread title says, I buy open content.

I have the freedom to ignore closed content - I'm simply trying to verbalize why I prefer open content. I will try and push publishers to be more open for the same reason I try to push coders to be more open; so that we all benefit. So that the best ideas disseminate as widely as possible, so the most elegant stuff is used everywhere.

I may not change minds, but I consider it my ethical duty to try. And I sincerely and deeply appreciate all the open content that has been released and respect people's decisions to want to exercise control - I just don't subscribe to that philosophy, that's all.