People didnt copy Monte's designations. Other publishers were doing it that way for some time before Malhavoc was even in existence.
Clark --- The Sigil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Not at all. I think you are mostly right. You're > >probably aware of my take on "crippled" OGC--I dont > >buy in to all the claims, and I think that most > people > >are just trying to do stuff the best way they knew > >how, but I know for sure that there were some > >publishers who were trying to hoard content. > > Much as I love Monte Cook's work, and I really think > he single-handed > launched the PDF side into respectability and the > public eye, I kind of wish > he hadn't been the first big success story... people > saw his OGC > designations and just copied them without really > knowing what they were > doing... which isn't necessarily a bad thing, except > if you read Monte's OGC > designations in the "first published draft" of the > Book of Eldritch Might > and compare to the designations in the "current 3.5 > version," they're much > different... which tells me that Monte didn't get > things "right" (by which I > mean, legally reflecting the way he wanted to open > his work) the first time > - a mistake I think all of the earliest jumpers-in > probably made. The > problem is that everyone else just copied his early > OGC designations and > didn't learn about the OGL and update their > designations as he did. > > I blame the proliferation of "crippled OGC" > declarations on the fact that > most publishers that got into the game after the > release of the Book of > Eldritch Might seem to have used that early as their > model and never > bothered to look at the OGL again... in other words, > it's a "lazy" problem, > compounded by the fact that they happened to copy an > OGC designation that > wasn't great to begin with (not through any fault of > Monte's other than the > very forgivable sin of not being perfect the very > first time - and Monte > isn't part of the "lazy" problem). Once all these > new publishers jumped in > and followed that example, the designation became > the standard because > almost everyone was using it (with the exceptions of > those publishers who > had been on the scene prior to the BoEM - Bastion > Press, SSS, and Mystic Eye > spring to mind). > > That WotC never felt it worth their while (rightly > so, probably - I can't > imagine their lawyers are cheap and most companies > aren't turning profits so > that they could pay for the cost of WotC's lawyers, > much less any damages) > to "crack down" on sloppy OGL compliance doesn't > help... people could afford > to stay lazy with their designations (the argument > of "Clear Designation" > compliance that has been beaten to death on this > list). > > >But you forgot another reason: > > > >4. A lot of the third party stuff wasnt that good. > > Natch. In my defense, I was trying to address the > issue of why "the good > stuff" wasn't pooled and turned into the "de facto > standard" and so I > ignored this point on the theory that it didn't > address "the good stuff." > On the other hand, I suppose the volume of stuff out > there made it hard to > find the good - was it Dancey that said, "90% of > everything is crap?" - and > thus made it tougher to find the standout content in > the first place. > > >And another reason: > > > >5. There was too much of it. There was no good way > to > >track who was making what to even rationally > discuss > >what should be adopted as the standard. It was hard > to > >sort through the noise of d20. > > > >Plus, there was no interest in actually selecting a > >standard. Heck, you had GR compiling everyone elses > >spells. You had Monte doing his "best of d20." That > is > >as close as anyone came. And neither of those are > good > >solutions. Simply compiling stuff isnt selecting > what > >is good, it is just putting it all in a pile. And > >Monte deciding what is good, while I respect Monte, > is > >hardly the voice of the whole community selecting > the > >best content which is what you need for a > "standard." > > This is true, too. It's hard enough to get two > people to agree what > toppings to put on a pizza - let alone get an entire > community to agree on > what is "the best OGL/d20 material." > > >You are right. I cant imagine anything about 4E > that > >would make the above problem any better. > "Enlightened > >self interest" is a nice dream. "Greedy > begrudgingly > >minimal compliance" is the reality in many cases. > > The only thing I can imagine about 4E that would > make the above problem > better would be a much-revised OGL (and in fact, it > would probably have to > be a different license altogether to avoid the > problem of people using the > current hole-filled OGL instead). The license would > have to have more > "bite" than the current OGL does, especially with > relation to what must be > designated as OGC (or the functional equivalent > thereof under a new > license)... something that would basically be, "if > you touch any part of > your product with this license, your whole product > must be open (with the > exception of registered trademarks, which would > presumably be the means of > holding on to your brand)." I'm not a lawyer, of > course, so that's probably > not in perfect legalese, but I think it gets my > point across - basically, > your company brand name is protected, everything > else - text especially - > must be open; unless 4e comes with an OGL 2.0 with > requirements > substantially to that effect, I don't see much > change coming from publishers > (basically, they won't change unless they're forced > to). > > Of course, opening requirements that broad might cut > down the number of > people willing to work under the license... and > we've NEVER seen an interest > from WotC in doing much of anything with the OGL > itself since it was > initially released, so I'm not holding my breath. > > >Now, there are lots of exceptions. I like to think > >Tome of Horrors is an example of great sharing of > open > >content. But even that product, as great as I > (rather > >biased, I admit) think it is, wasnt exactly reused > >that widely. And I even put instructions in the > thing > >on how to reuse the content. > > Of all the "big boy" publishers, I think you and > Green Ronin have been the > best about making your content easily re-usable > (from the "goodie license" > in Relics & Rituals to the Tome of Horrors)... I > wasn't calling out every > company individually, just noting some systemic > trends. FWIW, I happen to > love the Tome of Horrors both as a consumer (fun > monsters!) and as a > publisher (easy-to-use OGC!). > > >The bottom line truth is that there was very little > >significant reuse of OGC. > > Bingo. There were, as you mentioned, compilations, > but very little that > "built" on the foundation of existing OGC (i.e., > taking what was out there > and expanding on it, not just compiling it). I'm > not sure how much of that > was due to legal issues and how much was personal > "ego" issues (you know, > the "hey, that's not exactly how I would have done > it, so I'll just start > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
