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".
Well, that's true. It is part of the SRD.
[P]eople still say stuff like "Unearthed Arcana is part of the SRD".
Well, that's true. It is part of the SRD.
See what I mean?
There's Open Game Content in Unearthed Arcana, but that's not the same thing.
[P]eople still say stuff like "Unearthed Arcana is part of the SRD".Well, that's true. It is part of the SRD.See what I mean?
** spoiler omitted **
OK, but I distinctly remember seeing RTF documents with the unearthed arcana stuff.
I'll search for it.
|
[P]eople still say stuff like "Unearthed Arcana is part of the SRD".Well, that's true. It is part of the SRD.See what I mean?
** spoiler omitted **
OK, but I distinctly remember seeing RTF documents with the unearthed arcana stuff.
I'll search for it.
The system reference document is a subset of all of the open game content put out by WotC, which itself is a subset of all of the OGC put out by everybody.
Some DMs restrict players to just the SRD, rather than SRD + WotC OGC.
That's not come out as clear as I'd hoped :(
A) There is no Unearthed Arcana SRD. It is the OGC of the Unearthed Arcana, but not SRD. SRD stands for "System Resource Document", and the ONLY people who can officially add or subtract from the official, 3.5 SRD is Wizards of the Coast. If you DID see an RTF, it had to be a fan compilation, freely distributed as per the OGL rules. Likewise, the only folks who can add or subtract from the PFRPG SRD is Paizo. To that end, a greater differentiation between Paizo PFRPG material and other material might be in order.
B) Yes, there are items on the d20PFSRD site that are not properly cited, this is established in this thread and elsewhere and part of the process of dealing with 100+ minds sharing material they feel is cool. While appreciated, this is being combed over at the moment for proper citation and use of the material included. This might mean some of it disappears should it prove not to be Open Content, and I invite anyone who knows material is present that isn't open content to post a note to the forums (http://www.freeyabb.com/pathfindersrd). Material that can be properly verified as Open Content will remain or be added to the site, and material that cannot be verified or is verified as Intellectual Property will be removed~ This will take some time, however, as thinning out that much user-contributed material is a daunting task.
C)I, for one, appreciate the centralized location of material and it bringing to light material I have not seen. As a result of the d20PFSRD, I have recently picked up a couple issues of KQ and a couple of the PF Companion books; mind, I only ever bought one 3.5 book brand new, and I'm up to owning seven Pathfinder titles, bought brand new. Its very good to introduce this material to new folks.
That said, if you do have an issue with the organization and presentation of the material, I'm sure John would be more than happy to welcome someone aboard who could help in the arrangement and organization of the material. We're working up proper standards to tag and cite the material site-wide at the moment, and this would be an ideal time to jump in so that it can be better organized, possibly to reflect the material as PFRPG Official, PF AP Official, 3PP, and Fan for example.
A) There is no Unearthed Arcana SRD. It is the OGC of the Unearthed Arcana, but not SRD. SRD stands for "System Resource Document", and the ONLY people who can officially add or subtract from the official, 3.5 SRD is Wizards of the Coast. If you DID see an RTF, it had to be a fan compilation, freely distributed as per the OGL rules.
I was thinking about incantations, which are part of unearthed arcana AND also part of the Modern SRD, although slightly altered.
Available and usable in a nice RTF document at wizards.
It almost sounds like you need someone at your site who is the OGL Guru as it were. Whose job it is to scour all the content you have there for the 3 things you mentioned every article needs. Plus if it doesn't have the correct permission, that said person would try and get them.
Do you have someone like that or is it just a job everyone tries to do little pieces of?
|
|
It almost sounds like you need someone at your site who is the OGL Guru as it were. Whose job it is to scour all the content you have there for the 3 things you mentioned every article needs. Plus if it doesn't have the correct permission, that said person would try and get them.
Do you have someone like that or is it just a job everyone tries to do little pieces of?
Originally that was me but now Nate has moved into that role. Either way, anyone and everyone who works on the site has a responsibility to adhere to the best of their ability to the OGL and CUP. We try to make that clear in advance and we provide guidance where needed. When mistakes are made we go in and clean them up and then remind the contributor of the rules and what they did wrong/how to avoid it in the future. Either way, Nate runs point, but we are all responsible.
I think its better that way anyway because I prefer to work on and promote the site, adding content and such, as well as serve more as a "project manager" guiding the direction of the site as well as finding and pursuing some of the more boring subject areas (following up on getting the known bugs with the Google Sites import/export tool working, implementing more advanced Google Docs features such as forms and linked spreadsheets etc) As it is now I just defer to Nate and whatever decisions he makes are generally final when it comes to licensing matters and questions. I'm *really* glad he's on the team. Oh also, he might have a better Diplomacy score than I so he might be able to help smooth over damage I have done in the past, or at least make an Aid Another check when I stick my foot in my mouth :)
Originally that was me but now Nate has moved into that role...Either way, Nate runs point, but we are all responsible.
lol- thanks John ^_^
Yup, I've volunteered to take point on the matter. I came onto the project about two weeks ago specifically because of a citation issue and volunteered to scrounge up some of the missing citations. As a result of seeing how much there is, I'm working on assembling everything I can and working with the contributors actually providing the content to make sure citations go smoothly. Part of the situation here with KQ is in a way my fault, as we were missing citations on KQ content and I wasn't certain of its legality as a result. There's a bit of a fervor on the contributor forums ATM about legality, but, as I've said here, as long as we can find or have those three items provided, we can validate the content and go about our merry way.That said, I'm also a publisher (hence the interest in correct citations on a resource I plan on make extensive use of) and I run a B&M game store, so my time is split pretty well. SO, two weeks on the job between everything else, we're in the early stages of getting fully compliant. We will get there, and all of the content at a point in the near future will be fully vetted, so bear with us and lend a hand if you see something that doesn't seem appropriate ^_^
Originally that was me but now Nate has moved into that role...Either way, Nate runs point, but we are all responsible.lol- thanks John ^_^
Yup, I've volunteered to take point on the matter. I came onto the project about two weeks ago specifically because of a citation issue and volunteered to scrounge up some of the missing citations. As a result of seeing how much there is, I'm working on assembling everything I can and working with the contributors actually providing the content to make sure citations go smoothly. Part of the situation here with KQ is in a way my fault, as we were missing citations on KQ content and I wasn't certain of its legality as a result. There's a bit of a fervor on the contributor forums ATM about legality, but, as I've said here, as long as we can find or have those three items provided, we can validate the content and go about our merry way.
That said, I'm also a publisher (hence the interest in correct citations on a resource I plan on make extensive use of) and I run a B&M game store, so my time is split pretty well. SO, two weeks on the job between everything else, we're in the early stages of getting fully compliant. We will get there, and all of the content at a point in the near future will be fully vetted, so bear with us and lend a hand if you see something that doesn't seem appropriate ^_^
Well I really like your sight and what it stands for in terms of sharing the game with the community that supports it. Let me know if I can be of any help, I have some free time and would certainly be willing to donate it to helping out.
|
|
Well I really like your sight and what it stands for in terms of sharing the game with the community that supports it. Let me know if I can be of any help, I have some free time and would certainly be willing to donate it to helping out.
Great to hear it Undeadlord! (wow how cool would it be having an actual undead lord working on the site??) Umm ok all you need is a Google ID. It doesn't have to be a Gmail address, just whatever account you can use to log into various Google services (like news etc).
Let me know that ID. You can either post it here or email it to me directly (jreyst@gmail.com) and then I'll add you in. Once you are in the system check out the stickies on the d20pfsrd.com collaborators messageboards and see if there's a particular task you'd most like to get involved with. We've got a lot of different things going on so you're bound to find something at least remotely tolerable :)
|
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
OMG I was a contributor on that thread, I stopped visiting it because I stopped going to WotC website after 4ed launched, but I loved making lore entries and if you tranfered those whole hog then I'm credited in your site. I give you full permision to use my blasts from the past. Hey if you find any of my drunk DM competition entries you may use those as well. They were made before WotC switched its rules so that anything created there was owned by WotC. In fact I had the same username, I'm gonna go see if I can find any of my lore entries (I only made like three or four) on your site :D
Wow! The sour ingratitude here is really sad.
The d20pfsrd is a free non profit resource that helps people game. More gamers mean a bigger market and more people to game with.
I've always been aware that material on the site was either:
a) representative efforts from writers wanting to build their reputation (ie Mark Chance and SpesMagna's Lab)
or
b) A snippet from some of the best publishers that lets me see their quality.
For me, contributing publishers make up a short list of generous businesses that I want to support because the get the OGL and buy from because they write good material.
I don't know how people can complain about players having too much material. I think that represents an illusion about how much control you've ever had.
I also don't think its fair to criticize a volunteer organization for OGL compliance inside of a thread it started to strengthen that compliance.
I think the site, and the other OGL sites are great because they lift some material up to be seen. I don't want to write everything for my own game. I'm certainly going to go to sources I trust when I want material. I'm much more likely to buy an article to expand on material from a trusted publisher that I know is useful. It's a great time saver.
I like that it has so many volunteers. When we stop getting volunteers and homebrew the game will die. Amongst the volunteers great writing shines out - thats where I find publishers like Paizo and I hope Kobold Quarterly. The site shows interested gamers where to look.
Content generated by gamers themselves has always been the most important part of the RPG hobby. - Monte Cook
Finally,
This is a misunderstanding that is being worked out by the parties involved. Let's leave it be and concentrate on good gaming.
Sigurd
OMG I was a contributor on that thread, I stopped visiting it because I stopped going to WotC website after 4ed launched, but I loved making lore entries and if you tranfered those whole hog then I'm credited in your site. I give you full permision to use my blasts from the past.
Awesome!
If you'd be so kind as to fill out a bit of information that we can use to properly cite your entries, we'll make sure its perfectly legit! Actually, let me fill out something and I'll post a link, this could make getting user permission for many things a lot easier...|
|
OMG I was a contributor on that thread, I stopped visiting it because I stopped going to WotC website after 4ed launched, but I loved making lore entries and if you tranfered those whole hog then I'm credited in your site. I give you full permision to use my blasts from the past.Awesome!
If you'd be so kind as to fill out a bit of information that we can use to properly cite your entries, we'll make sure its perfectly legit! Actually, let me fill out something and I'll post a link, this could make getting user permission for many things a lot easier...
I can't even find that stuff on your site, I just went looking for it, can you link that section?
|
|
Nate - Not sure if it would help or not but we could always create a Google Form, embed it on a page, and then have the submitted data go into a spreadsheet. You can see an example of a Google Form on the Marketplace page I added recently (here.)
Just an idea either way. I guess the theory would be if someone wants to give their permission they fill out a few fields in a form and hit submit. Or, you just handle it however you like :)
@lastknightleft: We have a "Community Use/OGL" link as the bottom link on the left of every page. You can get to it here. If you scroll down and look in the big gray box titled "Open Game License Version 1.0a" you'll find:
WOTC Community Forums - Monsters and Races - Monster Lore Compendium. Copyright 2007-2008, Authors: Eric Cagle, "Dracomortis", John W. Mangrum, "Evandar_TAybara"
We included the names/ID's of the contributors we could identify. If you were one and we didn't include you we'll be happy to. Nate will take care of you :)
On a sidenote, if you'd like to contribute more directly, we can always use more help! (does my begging never end? lol)
|
|
Nate - Not sure if it would help or not but we could always create a Google Form, embed it on a page, and then have the submitted data go into a spreadsheet. You can see an example of a Google Form on the Marketplace page I added recently (here.)
Just an idea either way. I guess the theory would be if someone wants to give their permission they fill out a few fields in a form and hit submit. Or, you just handle it however you like :)
@lastknightleft: We have a "Community Use/OGL" link as the bottom link on the left of every page. You can get to it here. If you scroll down and look in the big gray box titled "Open Game License Version 1.0a" you'll find:
WOTC Community Forums - Monsters and Races - Monster Lore Compendium. Copyright 2007-2008, Authors: Eric Cagle, "Dracomortis", John W. Mangrum, "Evandar_TAybara"We included the names/ID's of the contributors we could identify. If you were one and we didn't include you we'll be happy to. Nate will take care of you :)
On a sidenote, if you'd like to contribute more directly, we can always use more help! (does my begging never end? lol)
All I found was a link to the original thread, that's not what I was talking about, I thought you transfered that stuff to your website, and that you had an entry there, not just a link to the original thread.
|
|
Oh, you were looking for an example of the lore itself.. ok, look at
Not every monster has lore entries yet. I copied as many as I could and then went through and confirmed the DC's on the checks were correct. We still need to do a read-through to confirm all of the info is 100% accurate in case a monster had any substantial mechanical changes from its 3.5 to PF incarnations.
|
|
heh I know at least one of my entries won't even be in (monkey) cause it wasn't in pathfinders bestiary.
Yeah it's been so long I'm not even sure of any entries (I only remember monkey cause it was the first one I did).
I found my entry on owlbear lore
and Yeth Hound lore
and Xill Lore
And Worg lore
that looks to be the extent of my lore making on that thread, I give full permision to use it all.
|
|
my user name@hotmail.com
send me an e-mail letting me know of any changes that need to be made and I'll get it done and e-mail it back, I don't think some like the owlbear lore need any updating, but the yeth hound and xill might, I didn't even see worgs in your listing so I don't think that needs any work unless they were done by someone other than paizo. I can take a closer look when I get home.
I'm way to computer antagonistic to want to try and add stuff myself. So I'd much rather do re-writes as they're needed than try to be the one to add them in on my old nemesis, the computer.
|
|
my user name@hotmail.com
send me an e-mail letting me know of any changes that need to be made and I'll get it done and e-mail it back, I don't think some like the owlbear lore need any updating, but the yeth hound and xill might, I didn't even see worgs in your listing so I don't think that needs any work unless they were done by someone other than paizo. I can take a closer look when I get home.
I'm way to computer antagonistic to want to try and add stuff myself. So I'd much rather do re-writes as they're needed than try to be the one to add them in on my old nemesis, the computer.
Hah! Ok, no problem. I'll check out the lore entries when I get home (the WotC forums are blocked by my employer) and if there are any changes necessary I'll either let you know (or just make them).
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 don´t know about the US laws in this regard, but in Germany there is the creators right and the usage right, which are not the same thing. You cannot, by definiton, cede creators rights to someone else, only usage rights are transferable. Perhaps something similar applies here as well.
Stefan
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 don´t know about the US laws in this regard, but in Germany there is the creators right and the usage right, which are not the same thing. You cannot, by definiton, cede creators rights to someone else, only usage rights are transferable. Perhaps something similar applies here as well.
Stefan
I'm working to discourage similar speculation on the d20PFSRD, its important to have copies of the legal statements involved before assuming anything. Generally, its still bad to assume, we want to cite and backup the belief with the text.
I'll be looking into the WotC forum policy before we fully accept the monster lore as good to go, but assuming it is I'm glad too to have permission from a contributor on their materials.
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.
So if I understand this right, you removed all KQ.com content over some question about it's status, but cut-n-pasted entire swaths of a messageboard thread because no one objected? I didn't think the OGL was "opt-out" as long as the content was good enough. ;)
|
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 pageOMG I was a contributor on that thread, I stopped visiting it because I stopped going to WotC website after 4ed launched, but I loved making lore entries and if you tranfered those whole hog then I'm credited in your site. I give you full permision to use my blasts from the past. Hey if you find any of my drunk DM competition entries you may use those as well. They were made before WotC switched its rules so that anything created there was owned by WotC. In fact I had the same username, I'm gonna go see if I can find any of my lore entries (I only made like three or four) on your site :D
Wizards has been purging old archives from their forums so if you have anything on there that you want I suggest you grab it. I pulled my DDMC and MDMC entries and linked them in my profile here. That was about all I had there that was interesting but it's frustrating. I only just barely salvaged my MDMC entry, it's no longer available now.
|
|
So if I understand this right, you removed all KQ.com content over some question about it's status, but cut-n-pasted entire swaths of a messageboard thread because no one objected? I didn't think the OGL was "opt-out" as long as the content was good enough. ;)
I think the two scenarios are a bit different.
One involves an active publisher posting content for a game system currently being produced on his commercial site, daily.
One involves content created by fans, on a messageboard, that hasn't been active in over a year prior to our asking, for a game system no longer produced.
It was not (and still is not) clear to me that the OGL even applies to fan created content submitted on a messageboard. The content creators did not include open content statements or indicate product identity etc, so there is nothing to suggest the content has anything to do with the OGL or is in anyway bound by the OGL.
Regardless, we had a lengthy discussion on our boards about what to do about the Monster Lore information. We felt the information would be a VERY good addition to our site and opted to move forward. I think we did our due diligence in trying to contact the original creators and should we determine that the WotC boards policy makes the content *not open*, the info will be quickly removed, just as we did with the KQ content. As it is, for the KQ content we'll probably just stick to posting material from the magazines because its still easier to determine the open/closed status due to the open content statement present in each issue.
@Ogre: That is a good reminder. If fans out there created content and put it on the WotC messageboards, and you'd like that effort not to be lost forever, you better back it up quick. We'd be happy to take on certain things so if anyone has content they'd like to contribute (and have converted to PF) just let us know.
It was not (and still is not) clear to me that the OGL even applies to fan created content submitted on a messageboard.
I can solve *this* one right now: Nope, it is not under OGL by default. The remark upthread is fairly accurate; the OGL is "opt-in", not "opt-out". Material has to be entered under the license to qualify as open content. Thus, anything not explicitly entered as OGC is not under the OGL.
You see this going on right now with the GSL; publishers releasing material for use with "the fourth edition of the world's most popular role-playing game." It's 4e compatible, but its not under any kind of OGL, GSL, nor is it OGC.That's why getting clearance from the authors and an explicit statement that it is licensed under the OGL is so important. Also goes for content shared here; content here is not (unless I missed it somewhere) licensed under the OGL or even the Pathfinder agreements by default. If you'd like it to be, as some folks do, make sure you include the proper statements~
|
Kobold Press
|
Man, if I'd known there was gonna be a rumble, I woulda come back sooner.
The two scenarios are NOT different.
::puts on rumble hat::
I don't think the OGL says anything about fan content vs. publisher content. I know it doesn't matter whether a game system is currently supported; copyright is the same regardless. The OGL is just a license; people can accept it, or not.
And just because content is abandoned on a fan site, does NOT make it fair game for anyone else. Copyright is meant to protect the rights of creators. When the creators are not available or responsive, some of those copyrighted works become orphaned works. But they are still not public domain and also not open content unless someone declares them as open content.
So when I read "we felt the information would be a VERY good addition to our site and opted to move forward" I think there's a lot of disrespect of the original creators happening. Sure, it might be a great addition. Yes, you tried and failed to contact them. That means you HAVE NOT secured any right or permission, so publishing it elsewhere is shady at best. IANAL, but on a plain reading of the laws governing this sort of thing, it's just wrong.
As a writer, I want copyrights respected. Yes, as a publisher that is sometimes troublesome and always more work than just publishing something because it would be "VERY good addition to our site". That's what publishers sign up for, though, including Web publishers. Hell, publishing a Drizzt short story from a WotC anthology in the next issue of KQ would be a "VERY good addition" to the magazine, but that doesn't make it right.
If you can't secure a clear right to publish a work and YOU DO SO ANYWAY, then you are failing in your duties as a publisher and likely breaking the law.
:: takes off rumble hat ::
I will continue to work with the warm teddy bear voice someone mentioned earlier.
I hope this very public discussion may lead to better use of the license all around, and some education of what's permissible use of material. Publishers of sites, books, and magazines need to know this.
We're all fans, I believe, and would all like both creators and publishers to Do the Right Thing. Sometimes, that requires a learning curve, and I hope this Rumble Rant is taken in the spirit it was intended.
I think the two scenarios are a bit different.
In the real world and taking calculated risks then yes, they are different. In the technical legal sense, no they aren't. If you don't have a clear OGL, you don't have an OGL.
It was not (and still is not) clear to me that the OGL even applies to fan created content submitted on a messageboard. The content creators did not include open content statements or indicate product identity etc, so there is nothing to suggest the content has anything to do with the OGL or is in anyway bound by the OGL.
I agree entirely. I actually had a long winded rambling 6 paragraph post that boiled down to "I'm sure no one will really mind, but please be aware you are making Open Content without the copyright holders' consent. Following the rules sometimes but not following them other times can come back to bite ya." If there isn't an attached OGL, it's not open content.
But, like I said, it was long-winded and rambling, and in the real world, I'm sure fans are fine with you using their stuff and keeping it alive. I would be.
Just be aware that the OGL is a legally binding license. And if you release someone else's stuff as open content, and another publisher uses it in good faith but gets bashed by the original forum posters, it comes back to you all. Again, I doubt it'll happen, of course, but I was just surprised that not only were you guys using the material, but declaring it as open gaming content based on "no one objected".
Personally, I would have used it but left it as closed content. It's your site (and very great one at that, realize I speak as concerned fan not poop-throwing attack monkey - sorry if my other post came across as snarky), so you all are free to do as you like. I just hadn't seen someone use the "no one objected and it'll be deleted soon" defense of making material OGC before.
|
|
Wolfgang "Jack" Baur's excellent post
I must admit, this concept of all these 3 letter abbreviated licences are floating a little above my head, but if I understand what you just wrote here, you are saying the only parts of the lore they are entitled to use are the ones that belong to the poster who specifically stated in this thread they were free for use? If so that seems fair, just kind of sucks that some of that content is essentially lost if the original creators dont find the request and grant permission. But thems the breaks I suppose.
And I extremely apologize if I have mispronounced your last name mr. Baur, as Ive always pronounced that particular spelling as rhyming with tower, hence the lame 24 reference.
I hope this very public discussion may lead to better use of the license all around, and some education of what's permissible...
I get what you're saying, and I agree. I also think we all need to understand that mistakes get made and the better way to handle them is via tact and respect from all parties involved. I see that being done in this thread.
And I think everyone in the world would be better off remembering advice I've heard attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte: Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
:)
|
|
I have a response but I'm beginning to learn that silence is the better part of valor, especially since I keep putting my foot in my mouth and providing ammunition to people. From here on out, when it comes to OGL issues, I'm just gonna let Nate do my talking lol
Its sort of like me pleading the 5th and Nate is my attorney :)
@Ken: No offense taken, I get your meaning.
rumble hat vs warm teddy bear voice
The two scenarios are NOT different...*plus lots of good stuff*
Entirely correct and no need to rumble when you're right ^_^ This is the kind of thing I'm working with John and the guys at d20PFSRD to correct. As well, I actually do appreciate the discussion herein; there's no venom, there's no malice, lots of confusion but that's kind of to be expected, especially in the internet age when everyone thinks any commercial fare is fair game. Its good to make everyone aware of what the licenses entail, and what a poster's rights are, both to acquire and use material and what their rights are given their own material put on here, or anywhere.
Thanks for everyone's understanding and hopefully we'll get everything cleaned up and checked out in short order ^_^|
Kobold Press
|
Nate and d20pfsrd, I know you are working entirely in good faith and I know the licensing issues are often grey and/or complex.
It took me quite a while to understand the ins and outs of the OGL, frankly. I know you are correcting things super-quickly and seem to be learning the OGL details at cyborg speed.
I hope this will become one of those things we discuss over pizza and beer at GenCon. Or spar about politely on a panel at PaizoCon. :)
Once again, the Paizo boards prove that even when people disagree, there's room for civilized discourse on the Internet, huzzah!
...I know you are correcting things super-quickly and seem to be learning the OGL details at cyborg speed.
I hope this will become one of those things we discuss over pizza and beer at GenCon. Or spar about politely on a panel at PaizoCon. :)
Once again, the Paizo boards prove that even when people disagree, there's room for civilized discourse on the Internet, huzzah!
Joys of being a publisher ^_^ We had a LOT of these discussions on RPGNow, and did for quite a while, so I learned ala trial-by-fire. Still singed...More than glad to help John & the crew find their way~
And yes, glad it's been civilized ^_^For forum-posters interested, I wrote-up a quick little "form" for anyone who wants to make their material available. As written its for us at d20PFSRD and in no way does it assign us any rights not in the OGL. Otherwise its a basic, boiler-plate set of the PI Notice, OGC Notice, and the OGL and Section 15, just fill in the blanks. All this does is help folks make their content clearly OGC if they wish~
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgt3prhv_0hhxrx2c7
Please, take, share, use.
|
For forum-posters interested, I wrote-up a quick little "form" for anyone who wants to make their material available. As written its for us at d20PFSRD and in no way does it assign us any rights not in the OGL. Otherwise its a basic, boiler-plate set of the PI Notice, OGC Notice, and the OGL and Section 15, just fill in the blanks. All this does is help folks make their content clearly OGC if they wish~
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgt3prhv_0hhxrx2c7
Please, take, share, use.
Nice. Thanks!
Director of Narrative
|
I don’t use the site, but as a designer that works closely with both Paizo and Kobold Quarterly/Open Design, this thread gathered my interest. (As well as jreyst’s other threads and comments over on the KQ site.)
Nate, I’m glad you are on board with the site and acting as the face. You’ve made a lot of posts in the past 24 hours diminishing a lot of concerns.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Oh, you were looking for an example of the lore itself.. ok, look at
Not every monster has lore entries yet. I copied as many as I could and then went through and confirmed the DC's on the checks were correct. We still need to do a read-through to confirm all of the info is 100% accurate in case a monster had any substantial mechanical changes from its 3.5 to PF incarnations.
Hmm. Now that I've visited those pages, I think I understand Tom Baumbach's complaint about mixing official and non-official content.
While the OGL certainly does allow you to take OGC from the Bestiary and add OGC content from other sources, I think the lack of any delineation between the official entry and the additional content potentially does a disservice to all of the authors involved in each piece of it, and does make it difficult for people who are only interested in official sources to use your site.
And it's even worse when you cite the source for just part of it, as in the allip page—any reasonable reading of that page would suggest to the reader that the lore came from the Bonus Bestiary, and it didn't. It potentially does Paizo a disservice by associating our material with material that did not go through our quality control; it disservices the author of the lore by attributing his work to us, and it disservices anyone who goes to the Bonus Bestiary looking for that material, because they won't find it.
I'd strongly suggest that when you have contributions from multiple sources on the same page, you provide clear separation and individual attributions for those elements.
What about color coding?
What about color coding?
Just make sure the color-blind among us can differentiate between the colors.