|
After continually running into products from 3pp that seem to have issues with the OGL I decided to add a page to the site assigning a general "OGL-Friendliness Score" to products from 3rd Party Publishers.
Take the scoring with a grain of salt. This is only meant to indicate how we see an individual publishers stance towards the OGL, based on products we've seen and reviewed and things the publisher may have said or done indicating a pro or con stance towards the OGL. If you feel any of our scoring is unfair or incorrect, please don't hesitate to let me know. Alternatively, ignore us! :)
I'll explain the scoring criteria I came up with... this is certainly not scientific though so it is what it is. I rate the following criteria on a scale of 1 to 5. Generally, all fields max at 1, except the "OGC Content" category which is meant to indicate the proportion of OGC content included in the product or website relative to the NON-OGC content. A product that is ALL OGC would get a 5. A product with NO OGC would receive a 0. Otherwise it falls somewhere in between.
OGL Present: 1 if the OGL license is included, 0 if not.
Declaration of OGC Present: 1 if the designation of OGC is present, 0 if not.
OGC Content: Range of 0-5, with 0 being no OGC, 5 being 100% OGC.
Section 15 Correct: 1 if Section 15 is correct, 0 if not.
Total Score: The sum of the above. A perfect score would be an 8.
Currently there are only 3 publishers/products reviewed, Rite Publishings Rite Review #2, Kobold Quarterly Magazine, and the KoboldQuarterly.com Website.
We'll be adding more reviews as the collaborators on the site have time to update.
You can see the page here.
You can reply here or on the d20pfsrd.com forums if you have thoughts on how to improve the scoring process or if you'd like to add information regarding a particular publisher. I see in another thread that Hyrum from SGG is working to make all of their products 100% Open Game Content, which would net them perfect 8's across the board for any products they release if so (assuming all other parts of the OGL for those products was correct).
After continually running into products from 3pp that seem to have issues with the OGL I decided to add a page to the site assigning a general "OGL-Friendliness Score" to products from 3rd Party Publishers.
Take the scoring with a grain of salt. This is only meant to indicate how we see an individual publishers stance towards the OGL, based on products we've seen and reviewed and things the publisher may have said or done indicating a pro or con stance towards the OGL. If you feel any of our scoring is unfair or incorrect, please don't hesitate to let me know. Alternatively, ignore us! :)
I'll explain the scoring criteria I came up with... this is certainly not scientific though so it is what it is. I rate the following criteria on a scale of 1 to 5. Generally, all fields max at 1, except the "OGC Content" category which is meant to indicate the proportion of OGC content included in the product or website relative to the NON-OGC content. A product that is ALL OGC would get a 5. A product with NO OGC would receive a 0. Otherwise it falls somewhere in between.
OGL Present: 1 if the OGL license is included, 0 if not.
Declaration of OGC Present: 1 if the designation of OGC is present, 0 if not.
OGC Content: Range of 0-5, with 0 being no OGC, 5 being 100% OGC.
Section 15 Correct: 1 if Section 15 is correct, 0 if not.
Total Score: The sum of the above. A perfect score would be an 8.
Currently there are only 3 publishers/products reviewed, Rite Publishings Rite Review #2, Kobold Quarterly Magazine, and the KoboldQuarterly.com Website.
We'll be adding more reviews as the collaborators on the site have time to update.
You can see the page here.
You can reply here or on the d20pfsrd.com forums if you have thoughts on how to improve the scoring process or if you'd like to add information regarding a particular publisher. I see in another thread that Hyrum from SGG is working to make all of...
What is section 15?
What is section 15?
You don't have clearance for that.
|
|
For an example of OGL hostility, I direct your attention to this thread.
I suggest that those who care about the OGL support publishers who do as well.
|
Anyway you could maybe post your rating thing up different? I ask cause the scrolling from side to side and up and down bugs me a little. I mean if you can't figure out another way to do it. I understand but it would be nice to have a easier format with all the information right there at a quick glance to be seen. Just saying.
|
|
Anyway you could maybe post your rating thing up different? I ask cause the scrolling from side to side and up and down bugs me a little. I mean if you can't figure out another way to do it. I understand but it would be nice to have a easier format with all the information right there at a quick glance to be seen. Just saying.
I'll definitely work on improving the appearance on this as soon as I get home from the gym tonight. I'm also looking for comments or suggestions on other rating criteria to use if anyone has any ideas.
|
|
Only other thing that I can think of off the top of my head. Not something that would effect consumers but would effect other publishers maybe. And that is a rating on how easy the OGL parts are to understand on what is and is not open. I mean two publishers might both have everything open but one might post it in a more clear way. if you get what I mean.
|
|
Only other thing that I can think of off the top of my head. Not something that would effect consumers but would effect other publishers maybe. And that is a rating on how easy the OGL parts are to understand on what is and is not open. I mean two publishers might both have everything open but one might post it in a more clear way. if you get what I mean.
I added a link to open the spreadsheet in a new window, which might make it easier to read.
|
For an example of OGL hostility, I direct your attention to this thread.
I suggest that those who care about the OGL support publishers who do as well.
Do we really think it's a good idea to vilify the folks who are putting out OGL works? This is your second OGL witchhunt which you've dragged people through the muck.
Edit: What irritates me most about this sort of thing is it actively discourages people to release OGL product at all.
I think pointing out OGL publishers is a great idea. I'm a big supporter. I just feel better using OGL material at my table.
Kudos for having such a clear objective rating system. I think it will become more interesting as the publisher list grows. I suggest you emphasis the positives.
I'm sorry you met with such antagonism and name calling.
Sigurd
NICE! Jon Brazer Enterprises ranks a 7! That's only 1 behind Paizo. I'd say I knows me some OGL.
|
|
By the way, I made several purchases last night and will be updating The Open Review Page with the numbers from those products this evening.
If anyone out there already has purchased any products from any of the publishers on the list on the Open Review page and wants to send me the info I can update those entries during the day today.
I specifically need the following:
Publisher
The full and accurate name of the publisher.
Publisher URL
A URL for the publishers material.
Product(s) Reviewed
The full and accurate name of the specific product in question.
OGL Present
Is a copy of the OGL included with the product? 0 if no, 1 if yes.
Declaration of OGC Present
Can you locate a designation of product identity or statement within the product indicating what is and isn't Open Game Content in that product? The designation does not have to indicate that ANYTHING is open, it just has to exist. 0 if no, 1 if yes.
OGC Content
How much of the product is designated as Open Content? If ALL it gets a 5, if none, a 0. The "somewhere in between" is somewhat subjective and up to your personal opinion/call.
Section 15 Correct
Does the OGL have an updated Section 15 that includes the title, copyright date, and copyright holder’s name for the specific product you are examining? 0 if no, 1 if yes.
Special note: I am looking for information from customers who have purchased these products, not from the publishers themselves.
As a reminder, you can see the scores as I have ranked them to this point by visiting this page: The Open Review. That page allows for sorting and filtering of the columns but it can be somewhat hard to read. If you prefer a more raw spreadsheet/table view (without the ability to sort and filter columns) you can see the data here.
Edit: Planned feature additions... I plan to review individual products and then also show a publishers overall average across all products examined. The spreadsheet is in its earliest form and will likely be improved or tweaked substantially over time.
|
|
Reviews added today:
- 0one Games, "Urban Adventures: The Road to Revolution #1—The Skullcrackers: PFRPG Conversion Guide"
- 0one Games, "Urban Adventures: The Great City Player's Guide Preview—Cultkiller"
- Rite Publishing, "A Dozen Armor and Shield Magical Properties"
- Neo Productions Unlimited, "Shadowglade: Wyre of Shadowglade Preview"
- Sagawork Studios, "Adventure, Dungeons & Danger: Horror at Dagger Rock"
- Crystal Frasier, "Hirelings: Into the Wild"
- Radiance House, Pact Magic to Pathfinder RPG Conversion Guide
As a courtesy, it should mention who was the contributor that provided the review. At the least, it would assume (fairly?) that the contributor had purchased the product in order to provide such information.
My $0.02.
|
|
As a courtesy, it should mention who was the contributor that provided the review. At the least, it would assume (fairly?) that the contributor had purchased the product in order to provide such information.
My $0.02.
A fair request and the information has been added.
As a note, all products reviewed thus far have been reviewed by me (John Reyst) and were purchased legally via either the Paizo store or DriveThruRPG. I can provide receipts for any who request them.
Good deal! That may help clear some misconceptions by also assuming a caveat whether said content was purchased or given as a gift from the publisher for inclusion. I think that'll go a long way toward the sharing of open information by showing support of patronage for each publisher's product(s).
I'll ask you your question. Is it a good idea to vilify a resource that has not asked for one red cent from the gaming community? A resource that is attempting to put all of those resources in one place.
Just because something is free doesn't mean I have to love and cherish the person who represents the entire group/site no matter what they say or do.
|
|
Good deal! That may help clear some misconceptions by also assuming a caveat whether said content was purchased or given as a gift from the publisher for inclusion. I think that'll go a long way toward the sharing of open information by showing support of patronage for each publisher's product(s).
Completely agree.
I'm certainly open to a publisher sending me free content, or even screenshots of the specific content I need for a review, though I acknowledge that may be unlikely.
As it is I am unlikely to purchase one of every product from every publisher listed on the Compatibility Registry, especially since some are very pricey. I am hoping that others who HAVE purchased some of those products can send me the necessary information, or, alternatively, the publisher can. As I said though, if it comes from a publisher to avoid any sense of impropriety I'd first only accept screenshots of the product pages showing the relevant information, and also be sure to note that the information was provided by the publisher.
Just because something is free doesn't mean I have to love and cherish the person who represents the entire group/site no matter what they say or do.Agreed. I say we agree to disagree and move on? :)
Agreed.
|
|
Do we really think it's a good idea to vilify the folks who are putting out OGL works?
My viewpoint is someone GAVE SOMETHING AWAY... this is not a product they charged for, it's something they put on their site for free. And John has made three threads spewing poison about the fact that he couldn't find his section 8... which is fairly easy to track down by clicking on the "license" link.
There is no legal obligation to post anything in the section 8. This kind of crap discourages people from releasing stuff in the OGL. John likewise made a big stink about Kobold Quarterly, he likewise made it in public rather than resolve the issue in private. He pissing off Wolfgang at the time.
Do you have some specific axe to grind with that website?
I have an axe to grind about people who make it difficult on folks who are putting works into the OGL community. These are people who are trying to make a little (very little) money and share with the community at the same time making their lives difficult just discourages them from sharing at all.
Tempers have been lost on both sides of the argument. In general, lost tempers detract from the valid case on either side.
There are definitely places where the interests of the d20pfsrd site and the interests of publishers intersect. I don't use 3rd party materials from the site, but I have learned of books from that site which I would never have known otherwise. That's a good thing for the publisher. If I found something I really liked that was marked as third party material, I would look into that book.
Given d20pfsrd's mission, an OGL compliance chart is a logical, passive way of furthering their interests. They should continue to offer their services as a publicity generator for PF-compatible material, and let individual publishers opt-out of that publicity.
If specific companies want to opt out entirely, that wish should be respected.
|
|
And John has made three threads spewing poison about the fact that he couldn't find his section 8...
I had agreed to move on but want to defend myself vs. ongoing attacks.
I did not think asking a simple question regarding where the declaration of product identity is would be viewed as "spewing poison." I'm sorry if you feel that way but I was asking an honest question. I had no ill intentions whether you believe it or not.
...which is fairly easy to track down by clicking on the "license" link.
I had a lengthy response composed but will leave it alone. As I said, moving on.
There is no legal obligation to post anything in the section 8.
That is absolutely correct. Nothing requires a publisher to declare ANYTHING Open Content, but they ARE required to clearly indicate that fact. All I was saying is that I was unable to locate that statement, not that I was complaining that the product was not Open Content, which, as I said, I was unable to determine due to either my inability to locate the product identity statement, or its lack of existence. I will remind the readers though that Paizo folks themselves have made it very clear repeatedly that they openly and fully support the OGL and provide an immense amount of material fully open under the terms of the OGL. They have indicated nothing but the strongest support for the OGL and the spirit of sharing and the ability to build on the work of others in the community. They have made it very clear also that declaring NOTHING Open Content, while legal under the terms of the OGL, is pretty counter to the "spirit" of the OGL. However, each publisher is free to declare whatever they want Open, or not, at their discretion.
This kind of crap discourages people from releasing stuff in the OGL. John likewise made a big stink about Kobold Quarterly, he likewise made it in public rather than resolve the issue in private. He pissing off Wolfgang at the time.
The problem there was the same as here, a publisher not complying with the terms of the OGL. Am I a demon for noticing that? I guess so. All I'm asking is that if publishers are going to distribute under the OGL that they comply with its terms. If that makes me a bad guy then so be it. I'd love to be popular but its not really my primary goal.
I have an axe to grind about people who make it difficult on folks who are putting works into the OGL community. These are people who are trying to make a little (very little) money and share with the community at the same time making their lives difficult just discourages them from sharing at all.
Once again, all I am asking, and I don't think its unreasonable, is that if a publisher distributes content under the OGL, that they comply with its terms. Can I enforce their compliance? Hells no! Can I note it? Sure. Others can decide if that even matters to them.
@Evil Lincoln: Thank you for your comments. I would certainly agree not to post content if a publisher explicitly asked me not to, EVEN if it was 100% Open Content. I also thank you for recognizing the mission of d20pfsrd.com does not HAVE to be counter to those of publishers. We have made a constant effort to try to promote the work of 3rd Party Publishers, ESPECIALLY those that have a very strong and positive attitude towards the OGL. I would think that more 3PP would look at d20pfsrd.com as an OPPORTUNITY for them, a chance to freely demonstrate the quality of their work, on a sampler basis, before thousands of Pathfinder fans a day. Yes, THOUSANDS. We're approaching a daily average of 10,000 visits a day and have broke 1,000,000 page views each of the last 3 months. You'd think some savvy 3PP people out there might think of creative ways of taking advantage of all those eyeballs for their product. A few already have and I'm sure that very many more people now know about their products than ever did before. I guess the point is "stop looking at d20pfsrd.com as an enemy and think of ways we can help you- we WANT to help you anyway."
I just wanted to add that there is quite a bit of work being done for free on the D20PFSRD site. I know, because I've done quite a bit of it. Mostly in the form of converting monsters from 3.5 to Pathfinder stats. I've also been trying to re-organize the monster listings, which has unfortunately slowed down to a near-stop because of all of my free time being taken up working for Frog God Games. (I swear that I'll get that finished, John!)
This isn't just copying and pasting someone else's work. This is identifying what we want to voluntarily work on to add to the repository of OGL knowledge and convert if needed. We can't do that without accurate section 15s and statements of OGC.
I, personally, contacted publishers before slapping all of their material up, asking if it's "OK" and if there is any way that they would like it done so as not to affect their sales. At the bottom of the entries there's a section 15 statement. I also like to put a link to their website in the entry itself.
Believe it or not, we want 3PP to flourish. We envision entries as free adwork. If you ask us to only put up some teaser information, we'll do it! We LOVE the OGL and want you to succeed! Hell, we'll even put your logo up that links directly to your site. We're easy and we want to work with you.
Allow me stick my nose in where it doesn't belong. Us kobolds do things like that.
Some of my OGL material is present on d20PFSRD.com. I put it there (well, I put some of it there until I got busy writing new content. The rest of my open content present there was put up by the fine folks at d20pfsrd). Why did I do it? 2 Reasons: Free advertising and I'm an OGL believer. It allows the community to see the kind of work we at Jon Brazer Enterprises are doing. If they like it, they might take a chance and buy that product (or one of our other products). A chance, I should say, that we might not otherwise have.
Have I noticed increased sales because we have open content there? I don't know. There is no way for me to point and say that this sale directly happened because of d20pfsrd. But I have noticed increased web traffic that I can point to. I can say that on a certain date someone visited my site directly from d20pfsrd. That is good enough for me. It is quite possible that I might see no increased sales because of it, or even a decrease. But I didn't get into this for the money.
I believe in the OGL and its greatness. This is how I am supporting it, by giving back to the community.
Here's my take on this tempest in a teapot:
I like d20pfsrd.org. I use it regularly. I hyperlink to it in Spes Magna PDFs. Whether my association (as limited as it is) with d20pfsrd has had any impact on my sales, et cetera, I cannot say. To be honest, it doesn't really matter to me. As was mentioned above, I'm not publishing OGC because I expect to get rich doing so.
My opinions about John's personality (or lack thereof) aren't relevant to d20pfsrd's utility. ;)
|
|
And John has made three threads spewing poison about the fact that he couldn't find his section 8...I had agreed to move on but want to defend myself vs. ongoing attacks.
And I wouldn't have mentioned anything except you insisted on posting a link to that thread as an example of someone being unfriendly towards the OGL. In other words if you want to move on then move on, don't make backhanded insults and point back to it.
|
|
I believe in the OGL and its greatness. This is how I am supporting it, by giving back to the community.
I don't think anyone has spoken against the OGL. Just against someone acting like the neighborhood bully towards publishers who donate product to it.
OGL is awesome. Treating people like crap because they don't care for you grabbing their just released stuff the day you announce it... not so much.
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.
|
|
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.
Well that was the premise of the thread until John (Who posts as D20PFSRD) posted some back references referring to a specific publisher (who in fact does comply with the OGL disclosures) as a bad example.
|
|
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...
Everything you said here... said in much better words than I can express.
I would add that most publishers don't mind their stuff being republished which is in fact why they release it as OGL. They just prefer you don't do it on the evening they actually release it while they are trying to generate profits from it or use it for promoting their site.
|
|
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.
I asked what was open content which is required by the OGL. Was d20pfsrd.com 100% perfect at that time? No, but when informed of what was incorrect I immediately made corrections. I didn't take weeks to make those corrections, I fixed them instantly. I even went further in asking one of the collaborators on the site to voluntarily police our own OGL compliance and that has gone a long way towards making sure we have our i's dotted and t's crossed. If someone see's something wrong I won't take offense at all by them pointing it out and I will correct it immediately.
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 ...).
I think things here are getting a little backwards. I posted one comment on one thread asking Steve to help me determine where the declaration of product identity was for the website. I was immediately met with hostility. I attempted to have a conversation on the subject but eventually gave up. That is the extent of our "discussions" until this subject came up again over the last couple of days. Does that clarify things?
Sure, in the future I'll send a private email to publishers. I apologize 1000% for accidentally breaking such a fundamental law of nature.
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.
AH HA! I SEE IT NOW! While I was aware of that page, and visited it several times, I was not able to see that he had mixed his product identity statement RIGHT INTO the Section 8! That is extremely out of the ordinary as most publishers place it somewhere else entirely, like Open Design has it in a box clearly called out, and others include it in a very bold and easily identifiable location! In any event, I see it now. So, it appears that basically everything on the site is Open Content.
All proper names and text in the description section are product identity all other content including translated proper names are open gaming content."
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.)
I think that the fact that there are several 3rd party publishers who are actively adding their own content to the site might suggest that some see value in the site.
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.
Ohhh... I didn't realize the OGL was only for commercial users. Can you point out where it says that?
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.
Wow. Pretty harsh. Obviously you don't see the value we offer. Do you really think all we do is copy and paste the work of others? Are you remotely aware of all that we do?
If I were a publisher, I'd start making my stuff less open in response.
Then any customer who values the OGL is less likely to purchase your product I suppose. Way to become a really small niche player in an already really small niche market.
Well said, Ogre, JBFort. I'd like to see a little more politeness out of the "collectors" too, maybe to the tune of a few months grace period before reproducing content.
They just prefer you don't do it on the evening they actually release it while they are trying to generate profits from it or use it for promoting their site.
Are both of you aware that we already did come to that agreement with Paizo regarding the APG playtest classes as well as with Kobold Quarterly? We came up with that idea ourselves and proposed it to them on our own and not by the prompting or request of others.
This is tiresome. Can we move on as we already agreed?
None of you have to like each other to get behind the same license.
(...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.
And guys, here's the dirty little secret to the OGL. You can beg, borrow, and "steal" as much of it as you want. It's Open, which is a fancy way of saying free. Just look at how many "Pocket Edition" rulebooks Mongoose put out. I know they did the PHB, DMG, and Modern corebooks, just doing a text dump of the SRD with little to no art.
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. Adding and subtracting material, which in turn has to be Open. If you use Open material, it stays Open material.
Hyrum.
|
|
Some folks here are making it out like members of d20pfsrd.com are showing up in a ski mask, and holding a gun to get content.
I have no problems with the site and volunteered for it and worked on it all the way until John pulled a similar stunt with Kobold Quarterly. It's not the site that bugs me but the playground bully/ OGL attitude of the founder.
John posted on the original thread, then unhappy with that answer proceeded to create 2 additional threads where he's posted veiled or not so veiled references back to that thread referring specifically to it as an example of a non-OGL friendly company.
So please, if John wants to stop having to defend himself tell him to stop pointing back to it. And stop defending what is essentially playground bully behavior towards a contributor to the OGL that enables your site to exist.
|
|
Honestly this is getting absurd with this back and forth. Some don't like John and how he does things. We get it, for F*&%'s sake let it drop already.
John perhaps you should in the future email companies and maybe have someone look over your email to make sure it comes off as friendly. It is easy with the written word with no tone of voice or expression to take something the wrong way. Also no point in keep defending yourself. You made your intent clear by now.
So can this just be dropped?
|
|
Honestly this is getting absurd with this back and forth. Some don't like John and how he does things. We get it, for F*&%'s sake let it drop already.
John perhaps you should in the future email companies and maybe have someone look over your email to make sure it comes off as friendly. It is easy with the written word with no tone of voice or expression to take something the wrong way. Also no point in keep defending yourself. You made your intent clear by now.
Dark_Mistress, I thank you for your advice. While I do honestly have good intentions there is a chance my Charisma score may be lower than I would like :) In order to try to account for that I have, in the past, asked other members of the site to handle contacting other parties since that is apparently not one of my strong suits. I have taken the advice though of making sure to attempt to contact individuals via email in the future. I'll probably revisit the notion of letting someone else handle contacting people again as its clearly something I'm just not very good at.
|
|
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.AH HA! I SEE IT NOW! While I was aware of that page, and visited it several times, I was not able to see that he had mixed his product identity statement RIGHT INTO the Section 8! That is extremely out of the ordinary as most publishers place it somewhere else entirely, like Open Design has it in a box clearly called out, and others include it in a very bold and easily identifiable location! In any event, I see it now. So, it appears that basically everything on the site is Open Content.
So now Rite Publishing is going to be added to your page as being a OGL friendly company?
Maybe you can apologize for dragging him through all this when it was in fact your own oversight that was the only omission?
|
|
So now Rite Publishing is going to be added to your page as being a OGL friendly company?
Maybe you can apologize for dragging him through all this when it was in fact your own oversight that was the only omission?
I never said on d20pfsrd.com that his company was OGL unfriendly.
I already apologized here. I'll also be sending him a private email, for whatever that's worth.
If you were to look at The Open Review page on the site you would already know that we rate based on a purely objective basis and the 4 products we reviewed have had their scores updated based on now being able to locate the Open Content information. However, Rite Review #1 is still entirely missing the OGL so its score remains the same.
This could have been so much simpler if when I asked initially the response simply was "Oh, hey John, how are you? Oh, the IP designation/OGC indication? We put it right in the Section 8. Yeah, I know that's out of the ordinary. Thanks for asking though! Hey, John, do you mind if we put a large ad on your main page for absolutely free? You don't? Wow! Cool!" instead of how it went down.