Due to uncertainty concerning the open content status of all articles from the KoboldQuarterly.com website, they have been removed. If you would like to see this content restored to the site I encourage you to make your desires known on the KoboldQuarterly.com messageboards. Sorry!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Due to uncertainty concerning the open content status of all articles from the KoboldQuarterly.com website, they have been removed. If you would like to see this content restored to the site I encourage you to make your desires known on the KoboldQuarterly.com messageboards. Sorry!
Thank you for letting us know.
I'd really love to have the content on the site but I just don't know what is open and what isn't. Until I'm sure I'd rather not work on linking and formatting content I might have to take down later.
All I need is a sentence in each article saying "This is Open Game Content" or "This is not Open Game Content".
All I need is a sentence in each article saying "This is Open Game Content" or "This is not Open Game Content".
Specifically, isn't that required for all articles that use the OGL? Or does Kobold Quarterly taking the stance that game rules can't be copyrighted and therefore it isn't necessary to use the OGL?
It is not clear to me exactly WHAT the policy is for articles posted on Koboldquarterly.com. I can't find an open content policy statement anywhere on the site. I've asked numerous times also, though with no real response. I'm sure its just that Wolfgang and friends are busy with various open game projects, but they post content on the site every day and it is unclear to me what is and what is not open content.
|
I've seen the declaration. It's usually found on the page which list all the staff (Kobold-in-Chief, Circulation Director, etc.)
Here's from KQ issue 10:
Open Game Content: The Open content in this issue is the monster
statistics in the the “Ticking Hounds and Clockwork Hunters” article, the
monster statistics in “Hill Giant Half-Breed” and the feats in “Back and
Better Than Ever”. All other material is Product Identity. No other portion
of this work may be reproduced in any form without permission.
EDIT: Oops. You're discussing the content on the site, not the mags. Please ignore this post. Move along, move along....
I'm not talking about the magazine, I know all about those statements. I'm referring to content posted on the website.
Edit: Sorry, I responded before you edited :)
I am of two minds on this:
1) Most content shown at KQ.com is fan-made, like for example my tuesday traps. I still consider those articles as my creations and they are not OGC.
2) Some content however is done by KQ itself, that content should get an OGL/OGC declaration.
So, Yes, I do think that it is the smart thing to do, until Wolfgang and Scott decide what to do.
I also understand that this is a very low priority item for them.
I don't care if they are open content or not (well really I do) but all I'd like to see is a statement that accompanies an article saying as much. It seems that is a major undertaking though.
John, and everyone!
We are actively working to remedy the situation with the missing OGL declarations at the Kobold Quarterly website. In truth, this caught us off guard at a very busy time. I hope to have the situation completely back to normal before week's end. Thanks for being patient!
Scott
Scott, Glad to hear it. That's all I really needed to hear. I'm wondering though if you guys monitor your messageboards since I asked this question there a week ago with no response (and then again several more times). All I really needed was one short sentence like the above. The silence made it appear as if you guys didn't believe the statements were necessary. I see that was clearly mistaken. Sorry for pestering you guys, I just wanted to make sure that wasn't the case!
This was a concern of mine when I contributed my regular "Behind the Spells" column on KQ.com. To address this, each issue (after the first couple) has an OGC declaration so you're free to use the open bits as you desire (this would be the "spell secret" and "related research" sections).
This was a concern of mine when I contributed my regular "Behind the Spells" column on KQ.com. To address this, each issue (after the first couple) has an OGC declaration so you're free to use the open bits as you desire (this would be the "spell secret" and "related research" sections).
Are you referring to the magazine or the website?
If the former, I'm aware of the open content statements in the magazines.
If the latter, I don't see any such statements on any articles as far back as I have gone in their article history. Granted I may not have gone back all the way but I have gone back a long way.
Kudos to everyone, especially John, if this gets all cleared up.
KQ puts out such nice material. Bread crumbs back to the magazine seems like such an idea.
Sigurd
We're actually linking every bit of content back to the product purchase page... its in our database that way. I'm trying to get it even smoother but I hit a snag worrying about what was open and what wasn't and didn't want to waste time adding content only to have to take it down later. It was kind of a roadblock :(
This was a concern of mine when I contributed my regular "Behind the Spells" column on KQ.com. To address this, each issue (after the first couple) has an OGC declaration so you're free to use the open bits as you desire (this would be the "spell secret" and "related research" sections).Are you referring to the magazine or the website?
If the former, I'm aware of the open content statements in the magazines.
If the latter, I don't see any such statements on any articles as far back as I have gone in their article history. Granted I may not have gone back all the way but I have gone back a long way.
I'm referring to the website. There were 11 installments, the last of which was Unseen Servant. Notice the tiny link to the OGL at the end.
Ah. That would suit me perfectly. So all of your behind the spells articles are OGC? I'd love to add that also to the site :)
Ah. That would suit me perfectly. So all of your behind the spells articles are OGC? I'd love to add that also to the site :)
The second two sections are OGC, yes.
I'm going to toss in two cents here, just to be on the safe side as the d20PFSRD legal-Nazi: Do you have the ability to make that declaration? I know some magazines, even those accepting submissions, have contracts/agreements/policies that effectively grant them exclusive control of the material, and therefore the right to attach the OGL or not. While your intent might be to make it OGC, its good to establish that you can still do that and that KQ agrees that you can do that.
Tagging straight from KQ staff is a good thing as well, makes their policy and stance on the material crystal clear.
I'm referring to the website. There were 11 installments, the last of which was Unseen Servant. Notice the tiny link to the OGL at the end.
The second two sections are OGC, yes.
I can see confusion here. Where on the website do you make this distinction? I think you need a clearer designation in the article.
Nice articles btw.
S
Okey dokey, let's put this to rest. (I'm only speaking on behalf of my articles here...)
I made certain that, forseeing usage of these articles in a compilation book down the road, the rights remained with my company. Hence the final line in the OGL section 15 here: "Behind the Spells: Unseen Servant Copyright 2009, Tricky Owlbear Publishing, Inc.; Author Bret Boyd"
As the copyright holder, I'm telling you that you can use the "spell secret" and "related research" sections on your site. I'm very easy to get along with. :)
Bret Boyd
President
Tricky Owlbear Publishing, Inc.
lol, thank you Bret ^_^ It might seem like a pain in the rear but we do appreciate it, and a good clear declaration makes life easier for everyone to use the material ^_^
Kobold Press
|
Huh. Apparently d20PFRPG wants OGL declarations from me, but doesn't post the required notices on its site.
Maybe I'm missing something, but there's no OGL declaration on Nicolas Logue's Barghest article, for example.
Please let me know what's up. The need for open content declarations runs both ways, and it's a requirement of the license that material used under the license be credited in Section 15. Where would I find that on this page?
|
|
Wolfgang,
(it's d20PFSRD, not d20PFPRG but I suspect you were just typing in a hurry so no biggie lol)
We are vigorously going through all monsters and content taken from other sources and applying the proper licensing terms and statements wherever necessary. I hope you don't believe that because the statement was not present on this article that it means we were intentionally negligent. I think if you look over all of the new monsters we have converted from the Tome of Horrors you will see how we are adding the section 15 statements on the bottom of each page.
We did, however, include the following statement on the page for the Barghest, above the Ecology section:
The ecology section below is Open Content taken from Kobold Quarterly magazine issue #2, written by Nicolas Logue. The content was originally written for 3.5 and has not been converted to Pathfinder rules yet. It is presented here as a convenience but be warned that some effort will be required in order to use any of the mechanics in your game.
Also, if you like the Ecology section below, please show your support for Kobold Quarterly by subscribing!
And we linked the "please show your support..." sentence to the subscription page for KQ magazine.
Certainly though that page is not, as very many of your pages are/or were not, in exact compliance with the OGL requirements. I do thank you for bringing that to my/our attention though so we can correct it. It is certainly not done intentionally. We do have one or two people working on the site now who's primary responsibilities are OGL/CUP compliance monitoring so I will bring this to their attention as well as ensure the statement is added appropriately. As a sidenote, we are in fact posting a complete collection of section 15 statements from all sources we use, though I will admit that the one for KQ #2 does appear to be missing (that list is here).
Lastly though, and again this could be just because the interwebs do such a poor job of transmitting "tone" and "meaning" but I seem to detect a lot of animosity or irritation in your post. If you would generally prefer we do not repost any content from Kobold Quarterly magazine or the website, that is fine. I'll remove all content and links that point to KQ happily today as well as cancel my subscription to the magazine. I subscribe because I like the content but if I won't be able to tie it into the site and share the content that is stated as OGC with the sites users then its more of a pain to me than its worth.
I do hope though that I have just misinterpreted things and that this isn't the case because I, and many of the sites users I think, appreciate having the open KQ content on the site and linked into the rules in the SRD as a seamless tool they can use in their games. I think the spirit of the Open Gaming idea supports this type of activity but I can see if some publishers or creators may prefer to keep their content to themselves. Just let me know, either here, or via email, or the d20pfsrd.com messageboards, or your own messageboards, how you'd like me to proceed. I'll do whatever you like.
Hopefully we can clear this up!
--john
|
|
Just as a sidenote, I've removed the ecology of the barghest content from KQ until I can get home and get the Section 15 block added.
I noticed one other article that didn't have the section 15 content, and that was the ecology of the Froghemoth from the latest KQ issue. Since we had the text on the site but not on the page I just now added it to the page. I'm adding it to the tadhemoth and woghemoth pages now.
|
Kobold Press
|
Cool, happy to know that we're getting our ducks in a row.
Appreciate the super-speedy reply!
UPDATED TO ADD: Regarding tone, sure, I was a little annoyed to find that the man who has made a small fuss about KQ's open content declaration doesn't have his own in order.
I'll get over it, and really I'm more amused than irritated. I'll check back later.
Huh. Apparently d20PFRPG wants OGL declarations from me, but doesn't post the required notices on its site.
Again, this is in part my doing ^_^
I too noticed a number of missing declarations and am in the process of collecting every notice and Section 15 declaration I possibly can. With this, I will be updating the site's OGL & Section 15 declarations, as well as tagging each entry to its own specific Section 15 declaration so that other publishers can cite specific entries.I've been on for about two weeks and am still collecting notices. I have also advised that new contributors post Section 15 statements with the material they add and either track down Section 15 statements, such as in cases of the Barghast article, or suggest that we remove them until they can be properly cited.
Full compliance is coming, which is important for d20PFSRD as well as others who use the site as a reference (such as myself, which is how I was roped into this ^_^). It is a kind of new thing; with near-on 100 contributors, John's not been able to verify all of the content added, and the average fan isn't always familiar with what requirements exist for OGL use, so they "post & forget" effectively.
In general, most of the articles are cited under the site-wide OGL statement (d20PFSRD Community Use & OGL Statement). Pieces that are missing declarations are currently being hunted down, and if you DO notice something missing, drop a line & let me know on the forum ^_^ If you have access to the statement, even better if you could copy that in the post so I can get it up and properly attached.
Wait, so there's not gonna be a rumble?
*puts away betting book*
Aw, man...
;)
The only question I'm lingering over at this point is whether or not to keep Kobold Quarterly content on the site. I'm leaning towards removing it just to minimize my headaches. I'm gonna have to have a talk with the other guys on the site and see what they would rather do.
Well, going forward, we just need to ensure that anything going on d20PFSRD has, or has access to, the Open Content Declaration, the Product Identity Declaration, and the Section 15 Copyright Notice. As long as we have that to fall back on, we can validate the content as legal. Without it, we should just skip over it. Its quite a bit safer for everyone that way.
RE WB's tone
Since things almost got a little heated there I just wanted to drop in and say how very much I for one appreciate all of the hard work done by both John (and crew) on d20PFSRD and Wolfgang on KQ.
What Brock said.
|
|
Well, going forward, we just need to ensure that anything going on d20PFSRD has, or has access to, the Open Content Declaration, the Product Identity Declaration, and the Section 15 Copyright Notice. As long as we have that to fall back on, we can validate the content as legal. Without it, we should just skip over it. Its quite a bit safer for everyone that way.
Yeah I think pretty much that's the plan. If the content has those three things its ok to add, if it doesn't, it isn't.
Just as an FYI for anyone who cares...
Usually when I find content I think would be great to add to the site I try to convince the content creator to become a collaborator on the site so that they can share their content directly (and so I don't have to do the work myself lol).
In many cases this works great. We have at least a half dozen collaborators who are either actively publishing their own content currently or are planning to do so soon. These folks pick something out of their collection of content that they'd like to promote or show off and then they post it, including links exactly as they want them worded or where they want them linked etc back to their blogs or commercial sites etc. In this way the site acts as free advertising for them, well free other than the expectation that they will contribute content to the site now and then that is. It seems like a no-lose situation.
This way that person is in complete control of what goes on the site and I get off their back constantly asking "is this open content?" "what about this?" "or this?" etc. I tend to think this would be the ideal relationship because they get to really pimp/promote their content while at the same time contributing something into the larger pool of free content and showing off the quality of their work. However, I realize that some content creators (or publishers) may be far too busy to become a collaborator on the site so in those cases clearly indicating what is or isn't open content on your site makes it easier for us to know if we can use the content or not.
Anyway, back to the original topic, as Nate said (and I believe per the OGL), we need those three items (the Open Content Declaration, the Product Identity Declaration, and the Section 15 Copyright Notice). If they are too difficult to locate or the content creator can not or will not provide them we'll just leave it at that and bother them no further. Its safer for us and smooths out our process. I'd rather be converting monsters and adding new bells and whistles to the site over arguing with people anytime.
It seems that everyone is just trying to get all of their ducks in a row. I know that we collaborators at d20PFSRD are trying to be as diligent as possible about the legal issues of both the OGL and CUP (I'm nearly paranoid about it, but that's me).
I know that the project, for me, is to share what I love about this game and hopefully make people more aware of all the goodness out there as well as guide some sales to our favorite peeps!
All that considered, any roadblock gets frustrating for all involved and I'm glad to see that it looks like the ripples are being smoothed over.
|
Anyway, back to the original topic, as Nate said (and I believe per the OGL), we need those three items (the Open Content Declaration, the Product Identity Declaration, and the Section 15 Copyright Notice). If they are too difficult to locate or the content creator can not or will not provide them we'll just leave it at that and bother them no further. Its safer for us and smooths out our process. I'd rather be converting monsters and adding new bells and whistles to the site over arguing with people anytime.
That sounds like a good policy to me.
The more that you can publish the better as far as I'm concerned.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I'd be somewhat disappointed if this doesn't get sorted out, but really it sounds as though it will be?
As a contributor, I'd like to continue seeing Open Content collected on our site (with the proper legal statements of course). I just think great content like this is far more likely to see good use than it is scattered across various sites on the Internet or pinned down in a magazine. As a GM, I myself will ignore content if it's hard to find or get to and the D20PFSRD site solves this problem for me. :)
|
|
I'd like to echo the sentiment here. I LOVE the d20PFSRD site and I also became a contributor a while back in an attempt to help with the codification and centralization of all the wonderful things Pathfinder.
I am thrilled that KQ and Paizo have made such really great stuff available to the public (read: me) for free and with my recent re-employment, I plan to promptly become a subscriber to both KQ and a metric ton of Paizo's stuff ASAP.
Having said that, I know NOTHING about what the CUP and the other open sharing agreements entail. I am, I admit, probably guilty of posting things without proper sitation and jryest has always been very good about going in behind me to clean up my mess.
I would hate to think that John and the other users of the d20pfsrd would be penalized for allowing foolish peons like myself to help in the effort to create a really great (IHMO) resource for gamers.
Anyway, that's my $.02. Thanks so much, Wolfgang and Paizo for putting out great stuff and letting poor people have it too. At least until such time as we can pay for the good stuff of course.
|
|
I would hate to think that John and the other users of the d20pfsrd would be penalized for allowing foolish peons like myself to help in the effort to create a really great (IHMO) resource for gamers.
As long as we're bandying opinions, I think you've hit on the reason that site leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Without boring you (the generic you, now) on my personal philosophy surrounding the OGL and how it's used, I have this to say: Content that is not part of Paizo's PRD should not be gathered and presented wholesale alongside the PRD, under the guise of being the "complete" PRD. That is not what anyone publishing under the Pathfinder Compatibility License is doing, it's not what Paizo is doing with their AP line or with their Chronicles line, it's not what KQ is doing. What they *are* doing is giving you options to expand your game. Options.
By collecting these options and presenting them alongside the core rules, d20pfsrd is perpetuating the notion that only by collecting these options can the game rules be complete. That's reason numero uno I don't use d20pfsrd.
|
|
Without boring you (the generic you, now) on my personal philosophy surrounding the OGL and how it's used, I have this to say: Content that is not part of Paizo's PRD should not be gathered and presented wholesale alongside the PRD, under the guise of being the "complete" PRD.
I don't think we have suggested that a game is not complete if you do not use all of the content on our site. We start with the PRD and then add things in and make a point of indicating where that thing came from. Some DM's will only want to run "core". Some DM's will appreciate having "core" plus some converted monsters from the Tome of Horrors (or elsewhere). Some DM's might appreciate everything that is there. I suppose this is the first time I've heard someone exclaim their distaste for more options.
When I started the site I intended it to be for my own personal use in my own campaign. I collected all of the beta rules and tried to organize them in a way that made better sense to me, as well as linking everything as thoroughly as was done on d20srd.org. Initially I just wanted to have a nice online resource to use when I DM because I am *much* more electron friendly than I am cellulose friendly, meaning, I am on a computer 16-18 hours a day and I use them in my games, both to prepare and during sessions. I find that content that is indexed online is a thousand times easier to locate than content in a book or in a PDF.
That is not what anyone publishing under the Pathfinder Compatibility License is doing, it's not what Paizo is doing with their AP line or with their Chronicles line, it's not what KQ is doing. What they *are* doing is giving you options to expand your game. Options.
All of those entities you mention are using the compatibility license because they are also commercial entities and publishers. I am a fan and I am using the CUP as well as OGL. I do not charge for access to the content and abide by the terms of the CUP. We even have several individuals now who's only responsibility on the site is to make sure we abide by the proper licenses. One of them is a store owner and publisher himself. He is going through and making sure that everything is inline and educating the rest of us on what we need to watch and be careful about. The reality is that none of us intend to violate the CUP or the OGL and if any violations do occur we have someone who will help us clean those up. I can point out two specific big name entities that have various OGL problems riddled throughout their sites, but somehow they are not held to the same standards.. I don't know why. Perhaps because they are well known names, I'm not sure. Regardless, I don't care what they do, all I can do is make sure we are in compliance, and we are for the most part. As others have said though, if you do notice something in particular that doesn't appear to be correct we respond to posts on the d20pfsrd.com messageboards literally within minutes... sometimes even less than that. Problems on our site are usually fixed almost immediately upon reporting. I can, again, speak of other much larger entities that take WEEKS to fix reported problems... and do not even respond to multiple queries about those problems. Those parties shall remain nameless but I suspect they know who they are.
By collecting these options and presenting them alongside the core rules, d20pfsrd is perpetuating the notion that only by collecting these options can the game rules be complete.
Sorry but that's just silly. We never make such a claim. We clearly indicate what is core, what is created by a fan, what is converted from a previous resource. Again the idea of disliking something because there are too many options seems like nonsense to me. I somehow doubt there are many that would share your opinion on that point.
Not to mention the havoc this reeks upon the DM/Player relationship.
DM: "You can only use core materials"
Player: "What about stuff from the Golarion world?"DM: "Like what?"
Player: "Well the d20pfsrd site has a ton of the Golarion spells.. and traits... and some stuff from the various adventure paths..."
DM: "Really? I didn't notice those.."
Player: "Yeah they're pretty neat, here check these out.." <passes laptop to DM>
DM: "Wow those are pretty cool. What book are these from?"
Player: "Well it says right here this is from book X.. oh cool you can click on the link and it takes you right to the Paizo store page..."
DM: "Those d20pfsrd.com dudes sure are cool."
Player: "Boy you know it!"
Paizo: "Wow look at all of these referrals coming from d20pfsrd.com... good thing we decided to create the CUP!"
Also not to mention that only the barest of attention is given to providing the source for these optional rules,
Nonsense. We include the source on virtually every single thing we use, and include links that are not even required by ANY license, AND go out of our way to seek out purchase links on publishers websites so we can link the user straight to a purchase. Is EVERYTHING set up this way RIGHT NOW? Probably not everything, but the vast majority is, and we're planning to do EVERYTHING that way. We even have 3rd party publishers who are direct collaborators on the site who post THEIR OWN content, and then link back to their blogs. This might help drive some traffic to them and help them sell product they might not have otherwise. I even go out of my way to help talk up their products on various forums.
or declaring them as optional.
Once again... if the DM doesn't know that something labeled "[FAN]" is optional including the word [optional] isn't likely to be much clearer. Hell the entire site is optional. Use the PRD, or the PDF, or the print book, or scratch the rules in charcoal on a piece of bark for all I care, no one is telling anyone they have to use this site, or all of this site, or none of this site. If you don't like it that's fine, but I can tell you that my Google Analytics logs suggest there's a REALLY large amount of people who do seem to like it... and many have been to the site HUNDREDS of times.
Also not to mention that there are a handful of things I've come across - before I stopped visiting - that were as far as I can tell are not OGC: Knowledge checks from WotC, for example.
Hah. Let's talk about that one for a moment. That information came from the WoTC community forums (here) and was originally created by fans.. just like us. We debated amongst ourselves what to do/how to properly use that information (you can read our discussion here if you like). We posted a direct request IN THAT THREAD asking permission to reuse the information those fans created. The text of our request was:
Thanks to everyone who put in so much work on this, it's an excellent resource and one I hope will be available to gamers for a long time to come.
A number of us are collaborating on a 3.x project at www.d20pfsrd.com.
In the interests of preserving this content and making it a bit easier to access we would like to add this information to our bestiary section on the site. We are hoping to start sometime next week, if any of the original authors of this content are about and would like to ask or not to use your work to or give criteria for this use please drop me a note or visit our site's message boards. We're also always looking for collaborators so if you would like to help s throw this stuff on the site we would love to have you onboard.We plan to credit your work under our OGL copyright notice.
Thanks in advance.
M22
We asked that on 12/6/09 and waited several weeks.. over a month I think, for a response. No response has ever appeared. In fact, I am under the impression those forums are to be closed soon anyway and taken offline, with the net effect of all that information... 60+ pages worth of fan created knowledge check information, being lost in the ether once closed down. Well we waited, and would have NOT used the content had anyone declined. Since no one responded after several weeks we went ahead and started bringing the info into our site. You might even note that we credit the original creators of that content in our OGL statement, which, I don't believe we even needed to do but we thought was the right thing to do either way.
Here is the credit line we use "WOTC Community Forums - Monsters and Races - Monster Lore Compendium. Copyright 2007-2008, Authors: Eric Cagle, "Dracomortis", John W. Mangrum, "Evandar_TAybara"" which you can find on our Community Use/OGL page.
That's about all I have to say on this subject. I respect your right to not use the site of course but I think some of your reasons for not doing so are a little misguided... but again, you can do as you like.
As long as we're bandying opinions, I think you've hit on the reason that site leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Without boring you (the generic you, now) on my personal philosophy surrounding the OGL and how it's used, I have this to say: Content that is not part of Paizo's PRD should not be gathered and presented wholesale alongside the PRD, under the guise of being the "complete" PRD. That is not what anyone publishing under the Pathfinder Compatibility License is doing, it's not what Paizo is doing with their AP line or with their Chronicles line, it's not what KQ is doing. What they *are* doing is giving you options to expand your game. Options.
By collecting these options and presenting them alongside the core rules, d20pfsrd is perpetuating the notion that only by collecting these options can the game rules be complete. That's reason numero uno I don't use d20pfsrd.
** spoiler omitted ** ** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
The OGL is the primary reason Pathfinder RPG is my game of choice. Paizo consistently uses OGC in their publications, showing a strong support for this concept and thereby cementing my loyalty (and dollars) with this practice. In so doing, Paizo does not point out the monsters, feats, spells, etc. in their immediate context as being "non-official" - if it's good material they use it and you can check their OGL Section 15 to see what they used. The implication you make above, basically, is not borne out by the very publisher of the game.
I don't see any statement on the d20 PFSRD site claiming to be the "complete" PRD. I see a site that is doing a bang-up job actually trying to tackle the one weakness of the OGL in my experience, which is having content spread over so many sources as to be unmanageable. Having all OGC traits, feats, spells, monsters, etc. in a single site is the single best reason I will use d20 PFSRD, not to mention it's easier to navigate than the PRD.
Perhaps the sentiment you express against the OGL above is founded in some other issues (you note a personal philosophy)? Without knowing that position, this post just seems strange to me. I know it's an opinion, and I respect your right to said opinion. It's just so 100% counter to the way I think about OGC and view this consolidation effort as to be nearly incomprehensible (not that I think your position is unclear/unfounded, but rather that I simply can't fathom myself taking said position).
[
Also not to mention that there are a handful of things I've come across - before I stopped visiting - that were as far as I can tell are not OGC: Knowledge checks from WotC, for example.
I think Tom is right about the above, I believe that WotC holds the position that everything you post on their boards becomes their IP.
JReyst - I think you should check WotC messageboard rules, coc, whatever and check if I am right. Would hate to see a fan-project go down in legal flames.
|
|
[
Also not to mention that there are a handful of things I've come across - before I stopped visiting - that were as far as I can tell are not OGC: Knowledge checks from WotC, for example.
I think Tom is right about the above, I believe that WotC holds the position that everything you post on their boards becomes their IP.
JReyst - I think you should check WotC messageboard rules, coc, whatever and check if I am right. Would hate to see a fan-project go down in legal flames.
No, you grant WotC a license to do whatever they wish with whatever you post, but you don't assign your copyright to them. So the original poster has a copyright on whatever they wrote.
I have this to say: Content that is not part of Paizo's PRD should not be gathered and presented wholesale alongside the PRD, under the guise of being the "complete" PRD.
I agree that there would be some merit to putting all "non-Core" material in a separate section. But on the other hand, d20srd.org did that with the Unearthed Arcana stuff, and people still say stuff like "Unearthed Arcana is part of the SRD".