JBfort's page

Tito Leati?
Anson Caralya?
Christine Schneider?
Steven Robert?
Elizabeth Lieb?

Their mods were really good - any chance of getting some more from them?

We're at 73% with a week left. Don't debate on this one-- if you want to see project launch, we need to hit 100%! Sign up and enjoy months of interaction, design and discussion with Chris Pramas, Wolfgang Baur and Mike Furlantetto! If you're a fan of Freeport or looking for some swashbuckling goodness, this is for you.

Also note, patrons get the PDF and access to playtesting. (Zuxius, I'm looking at you.)

-Ben.

How much input do the patrons actually get? Do Pramas and Baur actually listen to opinions and take input, or are the patrons just watching over their shoulders and kibbitzing?

Ohhh... I didn't realize the OGL was only for commercial users. Can you point out where it says that?

No, but I didn't say "commercial," I said "publisher". Perhaps I'm just too much the lawyer used to using language precisely. See below.

C) As to the use of the OGL, whomever said its not a fan issue is dead wrong. The OGL is pretty explicit about including EVERYTHING, which means commercial, non-commercial, freely distributed or for-sale material.

Actually, no, although I think the root dispute here is that I was making the fan-publisher distinction, and you and John are making the free-commercial distinction. Let me try to explain more clearly.

As a consumer - a player, a DM, a GM, a reader, a collector - the open/closed status of content makes absolutely no difference. I can make a beguiler (closed), a godling (open), or a multiclass beguiler/godling. I can write a prestige class for beguilers, godlings, or both and use it in my game. So as what I called a "fan", the license doesn't matter.

As a publisher - of print product or websites, of stuff for which I charge or stuff which I give away for free - the open/closed status matters. I can write a prestige class for godlings because Super Genius was nice enough to make it open. I can't write anything for beguilers. But that only comes into play because I want to PUBLISH something.

(John, isn't that your issue with the open/closed status? It seemed like you cared because you want to know what you can publish on your website. Or are you motivated by a desire to see the license used correctly without any impact on your endeavor?)

So the license is for publishers. Does it say that explicitly in the license? Not in so many words. However, the license only grants rights to publishers, not users ...

The OGL is a way for publishers (fans don't need legal permission) to share and collaborate and use the best of what's out there.

which is what the guy with the most practical experience with the license says too. :)

JBfort wrote:

(...BitTorrent is free, but no one is going to claim that it helps sales to have something up on BitTorrent.)

I'll chime up and disagree with you on this. So will the folks who publish Eclipse Phase, most recently represented by Catalyst Game Labs (the folks who do Shadowrun and Battletech). They uploaded PDF's of their products to BitTorrent themselves and regularly ask fans to download it and if they like it to then pay however much they think the product is worth.

Excellent point, and well taken. IIRC some bands have successfully put their music up for free and made money on donations from those who liked it.

So perhaps that was a bad example to use for my "Just because something is free doesn't mean that it's always good" argument.

Also, I deduce from the fact that most publishers (including SGG, right?) still charge for their content that they'd prefer to have the choice rather than having it made for them.

But, as you say, the publishers choose what to make open, and thus what can be reproduced without additional consent.

Lyingbastard wrote:

I thought the issue was that some publishers don't adhere to the provisions of the OGL, which can complicate in determining what's OGC or not in their products.

That is the issue unless you enjoy misrepresenting someones intentions or practices. If you do enjoy doing that, who knows what the issue is.

Not quite. It's several issues. First, d20pfsrd comes across as pretty abrasive about this OGL stuff. He hassled Kobold Quarterly for weeks even though his own website didn't have the OGL notifications right. Now he says that he's had "discussions" with Rite Publishing, but then backs off to "I only emailed you once" when called on that. Regardless, private email is a lot more polite than trying to call someone out on a third-party website (or the passive-agressive little spoilered complaints ...).

Then there's the fact that Rite's website has a pretty clear link at the bottom - cleverly hidden as "Open Gaming License" - which lists the Open Content stuff in Section 8. It's not hard to find.

Finally, and probably most importantly, there are some pretty strong reasons why publishers might not want to help someone give their hard work away for free. (And no, the "d20pfsrd.com is free" argument doesn't cut it. BitTorrent is free, but no one is going to claim that it helps sales to have something up on BitTorrent.)

The OGL is out there so that publisher A can use the work done by publisher B. It's only indirectly for the fans, in that what A does might be cooler if he or she uses B's content. As a fan, I can use all the closed content out there to my heart's content. So although I'm not a publisher, I can see why one might not like a parasitic website hassling them for access to their work. After all, if publishers can't make money, they don't create content, and the total content decreases.

If I were a publisher, I'd start making my stuff less open in response.

That's behind a lot of hostility to the OP, not "misrepresenting".