No I didn't misunderstand. I have had this discussion too many times but for the new people, here it is. It is unfair to expect designers and publishers who have put blood, sweat, tears and in many cases lots of money into the creation of a unique and interesting world, to open those up for all time. Once material is open it stays open. So to say "open the whole spell" is to say "give up ownership of the thing you have created."
And I say no. If you are a player it doesn't matter because OGL, OGC, PI, d20 and all the rest doesn't apply. If you are a designer, write your own world and stop complaining because no one will give you theirs for free. - Marc At 04:52 PM 11/28/2001 -0500, you wrote: >Just so you know, when The Sigil says things like "crippled" and "unusable" >what he means is things like where the game mechanics of the spell are open >and the name is claimed as PI, so you can use the spell, but you have to >change the name. So, when you check the Section 15 and see "Bob's >Spellbook" and you look for the spell in "Bob's Spellbook" you aren't going >to find it. Another example would be when the name, description, and >background of an NPC are claimed as PI, basically leaving the stat block. >That's a really non-useful bit of OGC, don't you think? That's what he's >ranting about. You apparently missed his entire point. Just thought I'd >explain it to you. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Marc Tassin, Ilium Software [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 4:28 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] OGC Designation (Rant) > > >Let me summarize what comes after this for those who don't want to read step >by step comments. If you are just a fan Sigil don't worry about this. It >doesn't affect you. Buy your stuff, play your game and leave the headaches >to those of us who need lawyers. > >Also, please don't begin insulting people when you really don't have a full >understanding of the subject. It is clear to me that you need to look at >more OGL and d20 materials, read some of the archives and really learn more >before you take such a strong stance. Many of your arguments are unfounded >and are not based on a complete understanding of the issues. > >All in all thanks for taking part but you really need to learn more about >the issues at hand before you "go off" on people for their perceived wrongs. > >Sincerely, >Marc > > > > >In theory publisher should have a huge battery of feats from other d20's to >use in their modules and monsters; there should be a huge battery of spells >to use as well. > > >Should be. There isn't. Why? Complex OGC designations (see below). > > >Why should there be? Because you want them to be? As it stands the rules >governing d20 and most OGL spells remain open in the majority of products >(and has to be according to the OGL in many cases). The descriptive >information does not. > > > >In the future, as D20 publishers fail, there will be a lot of OGC whose >publishers have vanished into the mists. > > >This is flat-out wrong. Given the ever-increasing complexity people are >putting their OGC through, we will have NO usable OGC even after these >publishers are gone. If every company were to fold today, how much usable >OGC would you *really* have (see below)? > > >Please read through some of the materials available. There is a great deal >of open content in all of these. Most of it is rules but then again that >was largely the point. > > > >Lots of publishers are currently getting the benefit of using open content >such as the SRD and yet closing material to such an extent that it's >unusable by anyone else. > > >As a fan, I will say that this is what frustrates me the most about the way >publishing companies do business. > > >Again, please read some of the products out there. Not that many contain >new rules which is what the OGL really governs. This is the reason you are >not seeing additional open materials being released. Not due to a desire on >the part of creators to keep their work from the people. > >Maybe this is skewed somewhat, and maybe I'm cynical, > >Yes and yes. You certainly have a right to an uninformed opinion and you are >being a bit cynical. Give people the benfit of the doubt. Research the >reality. > >it seems to me that the whole spirit of the Open Gaming License was to make >a friggin' huge mass of Open Gaming Content available > >Nope. The whole point was that WOTC discovered that they make the majority >of their profits selling the core rules. The more game materials available >the more core rules they sell. Thus we get the OGL and d20. > > This is my own opinion, and I haven't researched stuff statistically enough >to back it up, but IMO, at least 90% of all products released under the OGL >and d20STL have exactly ZERO *Usable* Open Gaming Content in them. > >Again you are incorrect. You really need to do additional research before >you begin saying negative things about the people working on OGL products. > >(by crippling the OGC released to the point where it really isn't OGC at >all) > >Not really possible since you can't claim ownership to anything already >deemed Open. > >The side effect of that is that complex designations also prevent legitimate >use, use a publisher might want to promote. > >If you understand the OGL, d20 and have a good lawyer there is nothing >preventing you from using some of the many excellent materials already >provided as open in existing products. > >I am a college graduate with a Physics degree, have a high IQ, am fluent in >three languages, and yet I cannot decipher what is OGC and what is not in >many publications - and in many cases, trained IP LAWYERS can't even do it! > >Actually it is a simple legal document and in my experience IP lawyers have >not had difficulty understanding it. If yours has you probably need a new >one. > >As a general rule of thumb, if it takes you more than 15 words to describe >what is OGC and what is not, you have done a bad job > >If only the world was that simple. Sadly, the perpetuation of a litigious >society in America has stopped us from allowing any legal issue to be >"simple". > >"anything specifically derived from the SRD is OGC" - WTF is that? > >Again...very simple. If you got the rule from the SRD...it's open. Very >simple and straight forward and really not open to interpretation. > >but the voice of the frustrated fan > >If you are just a fan why do you care. Play the games and don't worry about >it. The only people this applies to are publishers. > > >At 12:04 PM 11/28/2001 -0800, you wrote: > > >Just a few thoughts (mostly a rant) from me on the whole OGC Designation >issue... I skipped around in my reply, so this may be somewhat disjointed, >but hopefully the message gets through... > > > >In theory publisher should have a huge battery of feats from other d20's to >use in their modules and monsters; there should be a huge battery of spells >to use as well. > > >Should be. There isn't. Why? Complex OGC designations (see below). > > > >And, of course, open means open. While, as far as I can tell, all sharing >done thus far between publishers has been cordial, and by permission, it's >neither unethical or illegal to simply copy what you want without informing >the source that you're doing so. (Though, of course, it's a GOOD thing that >there's cooperation between publishers!) > > >I absolutely agree that cordiality is a must and furthermore one of the most >pleasant things about this industry. I think it is a good idea to tell >someone you will be using their stuff (if you can). > > > >In the future, as D20 publishers fail, there will be a lot of OGC whose >publishers have vanished into the mists. > > >This is flat-out wrong. Given the ever-increasing complexity people are >putting their OGC through, we will have NO usable OGC even after these >publishers are gone. If every company were to fold today, how much usable >OGC would you *really* have (see below)? > > > >Lots of publishers are currently getting the benefit of using open content >such as the SRD and yet closing material to such an extent that it's >unusable by anyone else. > > >As a fan, I will say that this is what frustrates me the most about the way >publishing companies do business. > >Maybe this is skewed somewhat, and maybe I'm cynical, but it seems to me >that the whole spirit of the Open Gaming License was to make a friggin' huge >mass of Open Gaming Content available - so that people could pick and choose >and mix and match. You would see all sorts of innovations and >cross-published stuff (i.e., an OGC idea from one company getting used in a >product by another company). > >What I have seen, however, is the same thing I have seen from the RIAA and >the Movie Industry and pretty much every "Big Industry" - the attitude that >"the less we give out, the better. After all we wouldn't want anyone using >any more of our stuff than we have to let them." This attitude seems to >exist in every industry from the RIAA (charging an "assumed piracy" fee on >every tape sold, for instance) to software companies (ever since we went >from "selling software" to "restrictively licensing software in a one-sided >agreement that totally favors the producer"). But this is another rant >entirely... back to the point... > >With the noted exceptions of the SRD, the DnDCC/FaNCC's Netbooks (with their >attempts to be 100% OGC), Relics & Rituals (SSS - with its extra license for >using spell names), and several Green Ronin products (Legions of Hell and >the Freeport series, for instance), the designation of OGC in pretty much >every product on the market makes it, for all intents and purposes, unusable >and therefore effectively closed (scream all you want that it is "open" but >for all practical purposes it's worth less than my cat's litter box). This >is my own opinion, and I haven't researched stuff statistically enough to >back it up, but IMO, at least 90% of all products released under the OGL and >d20STL have exactly ZERO *Usable* Open Gaming Content in them. > >And to be honest, as a fan, I cannot express how strongly that turns me off. >Suffice to say it turns me off to the point where I almost certainly will >not buy products if their complex designation has crippled their OGC to the >point of unusability. > >I have been waiting for some company to take this ludicrous idea of >following the letter of the law (releasing OGC) but not the spirit of the >law (by crippling the OGC released to the point where it really isn't OGC at >all) to its logical conclusion and release a book in which all punctuation >marks, pronouns, and prepositions are designated as OGC, and *nothing else* >is (and they would probably be between 30-50% "OGC" by word/character >count). > > > >I'm not trying to provide a means of getting access to open content without >making your work open too; I'm trying to provide a means of making large >portions of one's work open and available to others while minimizing the >worry that someone take your entire text, slap some art around it and >release the same book. I agree that this might be an unfounded worry since >the main problem seems to be normal piracy but I have it anyway. Am I the >only one? > > >I do see the publishers' fear on this one - somebody takes your hard work >and undersells you. But I have to agree with the points that have already >been made - there's no real incentive to do so - everyone who already wants >the thing has one by the time you take to turn around your undercutting >publication (granted, electronic publications could be more quickly ripped >off, but the point still holds). > > > >The difficulty of ripping stuff off while maintaining OGL compliance goes up >drastically the more complex you make your Open Content and PI designation; >that's a strong incentive to use complex designations. The side effect of >that is that complex designations also prevent legitimate use, use a >publisher might want to promote. > > >Precisely my point. But I honestly think (cynically) that the whole point >of complex designations is not just to prevent illegitimate use, but to >prevent *legitimate* use as well. It just seems that the reason people are >making stuff so convoluted is so that *nobody* can use their stuff in any >fashion (legal or otherwise). > >The "reasonable" person has a tough time figuring out exactly what is OGC in >most instances. I am a college graduate with a Physics degree, have a high >IQ, am fluent in three languages, and yet I cannot decipher what is OGC and >what is not in many publications - and in many cases, trained IP LAWYERS >can't even do it! Stick to a freaking simple designation (e.g., "text >enclosed in shaded boxes is OGC. All other text is not." or "All text in >Chapter 4 is OGC. All other text is not.") Nobody can miss it if it's >simple (even if you don't have a lot, I can't complain that I couldn't tell >the difference). The tougher you make it, the farther you get from the >"reasonable person" test. > >As a general rule of thumb, if it takes you more than 15 words to describe >what is OGC and what is not, you have done a bad job. Attributed to >Einstein is the quote, "if you can't explain it to a reasonably intelligent >six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." Six year olds can figure >out what is in boxes and what is not. They can figure out what is in >chapter four and what is not. They have a much tougher time with, "all >stuff in these sections that is not the proper name of an entity unless it >is derived from the SRD." Keep it simple, stupid. > >Especially bad is the phrase "anything specifically derived from the SRD is >OGC" - WTF is that? It provides NO information about what is OGC - how can >I tell what you derived from the SRD? You can always argue "we thought of >it ourselves" and since I can't get in your head, I lose. > >As a side rant on the ridiculous amount of stuff that is being called "PI" >when in reality it isn't, I would like to say that in addition to including >a 5% OGC minimum in the d20STL, I would also have preferred to see a 1% PI >*maximum*. Anything published under the OGL is published as one of three >things: > >1.) OGC >2.) PI >3.) Neither of the above - IOW, *normally copyrighted material.* > >I could be wrong, but I thought PI was the things that made your work >uniquely your own. In other words, stick to keeping things that used to be >thought of as "trademarks" or "registered trademarks" PI. While a few >specific creatures (e.g., Banedead) or spells (e.g. Fingers of Mormo) or >NPCs (e.g., Elminster) ought to be PI as outstanding features of your world, >I hardly think "Bartender #5" should be designated as PI. > >This is not the voice of a publisher or a lawyer, but the voice of the >frustrated fan who feels that once again, the desire to make money is >overcrowding the desire that he feels is more noble - the desire to >contribute stuff that anyone can easily use to the game we love. > >I don't mean to "toot the horn" for the FaNCC, but I feel that they are the >ones following the spirit of the OGL (even if their volunteer/fanclub status >means they sometimes have trouble with the letter of the OGL). They're >trying to grow the pot of USEFUL OGC, without complicated designations or >attempting to find loopholes to keep their stuff out of the hands of others. >At the same time, I recognize that it is precisely BECAUSE they are not >professional publishers, these goals are easier to achieve. > >But I would at least like to see some of the professional publishers to take >a couple of steps towards "sharing" some of their stuff... and a great start >would by dropping the complex OGC designations and instead making anything >"rules-oriented" and "modular" (and here I am specifically thinking of >spells, monsters, NPCs, Feats, and Prestige Classes) OGC and saving your >designation of PI for just a few selected things (and here I am thinking of >specific important NPCs, a couple of spells if you must) and just release >the rest (and here I am thinking of atmospheric, geographic, cultural, and >other information that makes your adventure / supplement / sourcebook / >campaign setting your own) as copyrighted material. > >I know you publishers on the list may balk at this, but this is what at >least one fan who used to have an expensive d20 habit (my habit is much less >expensive now that OGC designations have become a part of my "informed" >shopping") would love to see. > >One other thing - is there any way to come up with a uniform system for >designating OGC, PI, and "none of the above" text? I understand people want >to use italics for emphasis, but why can't the following be adopted as a >standard? > >--OGC is in normal text. >--PI is "shaded" text (i.e., instead of on a white background it is on a >gray background - this by nature would limit PI to acceptable amounts >instead of the ridiculous amounts we currently see). >--"Neither OGC nor PI" in italics. > >Reserve boldface and underlining for emphasis or headers. > >IMO "different fonts" for OGC are a bad idea (too tough to tell what's >what), and obviously we don't want multiple colors in print books because >that will drive the price WAY up (though an electronic book in which all >blue text was OGC would be okay). > >Or, even better, follow WotC's lead with the SRD - make all OGC portions of >your books available on your website. Then nobody is ever in doubt as to >what is OGC and what is not. > >--The Sigil > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ><http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp> > >_______________________________________________ >Ogf-l mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l ><http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l> _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
