Okay, there's a lot here and I can't read it all, but I can tell a lot of it is hot air on both sides. I was asked to weigh in, and I shall as politely as I can. In the interests of full disclosure, I am a d20PFSRD contributor, though more infrequently as of late, and a publisher (Neo Productions Unlimited).
A) John's usually one of the first to admit, but as many of us know he's not always the greatest at dealing with requests, responses to, and some of those come off differently. I know from dealing with him for a while this is NOT intentional and he means nothing crass or rude by it. Those who HAVE dealt with him and have worked with him know this, as should many folks around here given as frequently as he posts, so cut him a bit of slack, read for intent, ok? Too often online we get caught up in words and not in meaning; once you know the person (and many of us do), remember how that person interacts. Mind, I've said the same to John before as well, so I'm not picking on any one person, everyone would do well to remember this.
B) A complete, accurate, OGL statement is IMPORTANT. I cannot tell you how important it is. It can often mean the difference between buddies and potential lawsuits. An improperly used and marked-up Section 15, PI and Open Content statement can end up giving away entire products, including artwork and other property, releasing it into the community. A mistakenly assigned amount of OGC could be corrected by the publisher, but if someone has a copy of the uncorrected material its legally free game; read the license, once its in, it can never be retracted. If someone wanted to be an ass, they could hold them to the letter of the original printing. Many of us wouldn't, but the option is very real.
As a case in point, an unclear OGC statement in Kobold Quarterly almost led me to use material FROM that issue in a commercial item. That material was, in fact, not OGC at all. Best case scenario is KQ writing me a friendly letter saying I'm using their material inappropriately; worst case scenario is a misplaced lawsuit for infringement and breach of contract (because that's what the OGL is, a contract). Thankfully it was cleared before anything was done with it.
C) As to the use of the OGL, whomever said its not a fan issue is dead wrong. The OGL is pretty explicit about including EVERYTHING, which means commercial, non-commercial, freely distributed or for-sale material.
D) Open Content statements are, regardless of what a publisher might feel, a legal statement saying "I release this into the wild. I care naught where the wind takes it."; meaning the publisher (should) know that it can, and probably will, be distributed freely. It is COURTESY that it often isn't. To those who believe it tantamount to giving away material, it is. That's exactly what it is. That's exactly what its intended for, very much like copy-left practices. To those who think it harms profitability, I guess we should ask Paizo; theirs is an INCREDIBLY lenient OGC statement, and I have seen the same statement in EVERYTHING. Basically, without the proper names, nearly all of their material is OGC. And yet, Pathfinder and its materials continues to grow.
On a personal note, I have three preview items out for my Shadowglade campaign setting; one of which has a monster stat block which IS OGC, and clearly marked as so, while two recent additions are virtually pure fluff with character stat blocks, of which nothing outside of existing OGC (feat and mechanic descriptions really) is OGC. Publishers have complete control if they want to restrict it to free use or not.
In short, tempers flare often for naught, folks on both sides please keep in mind the person and intent before breaking out the torches and pitchforks, and yes the maintenance of the license is vital to the continuation of the 3.X lines. Those without experience dealing with it should probably read it through, and even ask around and see if anyone has the RPGNow publisher guide books; they're great for breaking down the agreement to plain English alongside the legaleeze.
|
(John, isn't that your issue with the open/closed status? It seemed like you cared because you want to know what you can publish on your website. Or are you motivated by a desire to see the license used correctly without any impact on your endeavor?)
My original reason for bringing it up is two-fold.
1) Yes, I wanted to know what was Open Content so I would know what I could publish on the site and what I couldn't. I was unable to easily discern that and so I asked the publisher directly. I don't want to get any further into that subject any longer since I am trying to mend those fences and don't see any good from continuing that discussion in any depth here.
2) Yes, I wanted to see the license used correctly, but in truth, I fully and readily admit I am not the OGL police and have no authority over anyone or anything. I just know from the experience of working on d20pfsrd.com that this is an important subject and that it would be very nice for all parties if 3PP were more vigilant in their OGL compliance. The OGL is basically useless if people who think they are distributing product under it don't use it correctly. I've run into this subject repeatedly with publishers who post content on their websites supposedly under the OGL but not indicating in any sort of clear way what is and isn't Open Content.
Kobold Quarterly has cleared this up very well, including a note indicating the open/closed status on every article they post. I regret that it is due to my pestering them that it is there now but in truth I think *everyone* in the OGL community is better for it, whether they know it or not. Yes, my rep and the rep of the site may have taken a hit, but in the end I think it was worth it since it is now very clear what is and isn't Open Content on the KQ site. Yes, I regret that there may be ill will with Wolfgang, I'd like there not to be, but I don't know if that's recoverable now. Same with Rite Publishing. I'd love there not to be any ill will, and I'd love to support and promote their products on the site, but that ship may have sailed now. I'm going to make an effort to repair it but as I said, it may be impossible at this point. In any event, the Rite Publishing site does include an OGL statement, and it is very open, but it was difficult to determine what was and wasn't open because I wasn't able to locate the product identity information. We'll leave that there though.
So the license is for publishers. Does it say that explicitly in the license? Not in so many words. However, the license only grants rights to publishers, not users ...
Again, I disagree there. I believe the rights it grants have nothing to say about who it grants them to. Is it maybe the original concept that it would be among publishers? Maybe, but that's not how its worded and I believe our site operates within both the "letter" and the "spirit" of the OGL. Open is Open we think.
Now, can our site have a better relationship with some publishers? Certainly. We'd love to. We'd love to work with publishers who have explicit requests about their product and possible delay periods before posting their Open Content. Is a delay period required? Absolutely not. But remember, we initiated this concept with Paizo regarding the APG playtest classes and even suggested such to Kobold Quarterly.
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.
Sure, we don't need permission to use such information in our home games and private websites etc, but if we want to collect this information in a central repository and redistribute it, claiming to be a focal point for all things that are both "Pathfinder" and Open Content, then I believe it applies to us, as Nate and others have made extremely clear to me/us.
Lastly, I appreciate the continued and civil conversation on this complex subject.
What's the distinction between a publisher and a fan?
Paizo is a publisher. What I do at home is fan work.
Where's the line in-between? It's not when you make money.
What if I want to make a website for my players and put up my fan-created world that includes both OGL and non-OGL material? Am I still a fan that doesn't need legal permission?
Seriously, I would love to know when I don't need legal permission because I would like to do stuff with Liber Mortis outside of my own, private game.
I'm mostly interested in seeing it used right, both as a means of protecting that of mine which isn't Open Content and as a means of properly and respectfully utilizing that which others have made open content. I'm thrilled with the amount of material Paizo has made open, and will be utilizing a fair amount in the expansion of my setting; no need to reinvent the wheel and all. They receive proper credit for their contributions per the OGL (obviously I can't say "Thanks Paizo for X, Y and Z!" in-material due to the same license, but with diligence I also know I'm not hijacking their work).
That said, I'd be really worried about that interpretation. That amounts to a hand-shake and hearsay when compared to the legal text; while I appreciate the source, I also know there have been disconnects between PR and Legal. There's a vast difference between what is allowed under law/contract and what is allowed when certain folks look the other way. From the OGL:
1. Definitions:(c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute;
(g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content.
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use.
Key consideration lies in the words "distribute" and "use". While you can cook up that Godling/Beguiler for your own purposes, the instant its out of your hands and say online on a forum, it really ought to abide; its been distributed. Many times Wizards or other companies won't care, doesn't make sense to tap the lawyer who charges several hundred dollars just to take a call to send a C&D to "PhantomLord26" for posting a mash-up on a forum. Additionally, with such limited use of the material (aspects of one class) used for public comment & crit ("Here's my guy, any advice on how to optimize the build?"), should action be taken there's always arguable "Fair Use" of the material.
Now, a "fan" who runs a site of these types of characters and "makes absolutely no money and does it for the fun of it to expand the hobby" (as many folks online use as a defense) really should pay attention to this sort of thing before going hog-wild with this sort of stuff. While both he and the forum poster are equally in the legal-wrong, the latter is a bigger target because he IS potentially damaging the material's viability. Add to that loose use of the OGL and Open Content mingling with closed content, and you have the aforementioned recipe for disaster.Intelligent use of the OGL allows even fans to share material without worry about their work being hijacked, or it gives them the same rights as popular software copy-left practices.
Besides that, a lot of the issues at hand here stem from incomplete (or in the case of Rite, a misunderstanding) OGL-required features in publisher released products. Again, it is in our interests to be fully compliant and make sure our full intention is known in the framework of the agreement.
*laugh* Good one. Yeah, Palladium is about as open content friendly as the RIAA. With their Robotech line, that makes a bit of sense - the IP they're using is in turn licensed from Harmony Gold.
A) John's usually one of the first to admit, but as many of us know he's not always the greatest at dealing with requests, responses to, and some of those come off differently. I know from dealing with him for a while this is NOT intentional and he means nothing crass or rude by it. Those who HAVE dealt with him and have worked with him know this, as should many folks around here given as frequently as he posts, so cut him a bit of slack, read for intent, ok?
I agreed to drop it, but I believe it is important to not my primary issue with this. I'm not trying to argue the rude-osity or nice-osity of John, whether he is right or wrong, just note the reason why I react as I do.
The reason why I don't really cut him as much slack is because the name he is posting under. He isn't posting as John or jreyst when this stuff happens. He is posting as d20pfsrd.com. So, when I think see an interaction that makes me feel that some publisher (Paizo, Kobold Quarterly, Rite Publishing) is being treated poorly, I don't just attach that interaction to John. I perceive that it is the entire d20pfsrd.com community is responsible for it, at the very least they don't seem to object to the post in their name.
Because it is d20pfsrd.com posting rather than just jreyst, I treat it differently. I believe that my issues with the site would go away if d20pfsrd.com wasn't used in 90% of the situations that it currently is.
The reason why I don't really cut him as much slack is because the name he is posting under. He isn't posting as John or jreyst when this stuff happens. He is posting as d20pfsrd.com.
That's actually a very fair complaint and comment. I had considered several times in the past changing which ID I post under depending on the subject of the post but in all honesty it really was just a matter of convenience.
I'll certainly try to be better about not speaking for the great number of others that contribute their time and energy to the site, especially if/when I post something that might be construed as controversial or perhaps not in the interests of the other collaborators on the site.
Thanks for mentioning that BlazeJ. While we may not see eye-to-eye on some things I can admit when someone has a valid point. I'll be more careful about ID's I post under in the future (starting now).
Thank you. I appreciate it.
Although,
... BlazeJ.
While the 'j' at the end of my last name surely enjoys the attention it gets being capitalized, it is not necessary. :P
- Joshua Blazej
While the 'j' at the end of my last name surely enjoys the attention it gets being capitalized, it is not necessary. :P
Sorry :)
Way back before they absorbed the dying remmnant of TSR, WOTC put out a series called the Primal Order which involved actively using gods and divine agents in a fantasy setting. The appendix of the book included rules and adaptation guides for using it with a variety of game systems including AD+D and ..... Palladium.
Eric Siembada was on the phone with his lawyers seconds after spotting that material. TSR requested with a bit more restraint that they include no further references to AD+D in any future product.
Ya, Kevin Siembieda is a bit... shall we say, 'high-strung'. Very particular about his own material, which is ironic considering how much of Palladium's material is derived from other sources - Juicers being a cross between The Flash and Captain America's origins, for example. There are also some odd counter-intuitive things, like how "Potential Psychic Energy" not only can't be used for Psychic Abilities - which instead use "Inner Strength Points" - but sources of PPE interfere with psychic powers, unless they strengthen them, which they sometimes do. Potential Psychic Energy instead fuels Spell Magic.
What's the distinction between a publisher and a fan?
Paizo is a publisher. What I do at home is fan work.
Where's the line in-between? It's not when you make money.
What if I want to make a website for my players and put up my fan-created world that includes both OGL and non-OGL material? Am I still a fan that doesn't need legal permission?
Seriously, I would love to know when I don't need legal permission because I would like to do stuff with Liber Mortis outside of my own, private game.
Copyright law makes no distinction between profit and non-profit use. There are some limited fair use provisions so you can mention names in a campaign log for instance. (this doesn't mean that the original creators can't seek to shut you down if they really want to) Whether the original material is out of print is also irrelevant.
Specifically you can't do squat with Liber Mortis outside of private use, save for any material specifically identified as Open Content.
And for goddess' sake don't even THINK of using anything from Palladium.
True on Palladium (unless it's another Palladium book, then you can copy/paste 50 pages if you want. :p )
My point was that as soon as you post any of the material on a public message board you, for all legal purposes, are publishing the material and should care about what is and isn't open content.
So saying that "fans don't need legal permission" is a misleading statement. Hell, publishers don't need legal permission to use whatever they want as long as they don't publish it in any way, shape, or form. Same goes for "fans".
By the way, the CUP has to be one of the most reasonable policies a gaming company has instituted and I love Paizo for it.
By the way, the CUP has to be one of the most reasonable policies a gaming company has instituted and I love Paizo for it.
100% agree (if not more). Without it, Wayfinder would not be possible. :)
Yes, Wayfinder and PathfinderWiki are my two favorite things about the CUP as well.
Steve Russell
Rite Publishing
The real big question here, does a listing or a ranking like this promote good feeling to the gaming community? Or is it a form of needling to publishers who don't subscribe to the open philosophy.
Good question. If I'm screwing up my OGL stuff in Spes Magna PDFs, I'd prefer polite, private correspondence. If I'm doing a good job with my OGL stuff, I'd prefer public praise.
Criticize in private; praise in public: It's almost always good advice.
First, re: the moral/ethical debate of open vs. not-open as it relates to software. I believe every person who creates something has the right to decide if they want to give it away, sell it, or destroy it so no one else ever sees it. I love open source and even run Linux on all of my home systems (and have since the early 90's) I also fully support the right of any creative person who puts their time and effort into something to be able to receive compensation for their time and effort if they so choose. With that said, in regards to the "open gaming movement" I love that too, and believe the gaming community is better served by the sharing of content so that people can build on others creations. At the same time I fully support a content creators right to release NOTHING as open content. That is fully their right and I fault them not one iota. Each time this subject has come up, in regards to d20pfsrd.com, it was specifically because we were unable to determine what was and wasn't open content in a publishers materials. I may have gotten a bit testy at times but I won't go into that subject any further (its likely to devolve again).
Now back to the subject at hand - I don't think that an objective rating of a products "openness" is much different from a review of the products overall quality. People post reviews of products all of the time, even here on the Paizo boards. A consumer/customer will purchase a product, examine it in detail, and then report on the observed quality. If a product is missing key information such as the stats for an important NPC they would mention that. If the product is of shoddy quality overall, such as if the cover fell off after the first time opening the book, or if the pages were misnumbered or had any number of other quality control issues, people would expect that sort of information to appear in the review.
If the reviewer ONLY posted the good parts, saying how pretty the art was, how friendly the staff was, how interesting the story was, and then contacted the publisher privately about the other quality concerns the public who look to the review to help inform their purchase decision would be missing key, important information. The review would, effectively, be useless to others because they are not getting the full picture.
In the case of the "Open Review" I specifically tried to leave out any "opinions" of publishers or their perceived openness and let the numbers speak for themselves. The numbers simply indicate, from our (my) best examination, the products degree of "openness". For customers who find that important, maybe it will help them decide. For customers who don't care about that sort of thing it should have no sway on their purchase decisions. The numbers represent simply the presence or absence of the OGL in the product, the presence or absence of an open content declaration, and the amount of content that is open relative to the amount of information in the product overall. Since we VERY often see publishers miss adding themselves to the Section 15, we mention that too, as it affects the ability of other open content creators to reference their product accurately.
I'm also attempting to improve the scoring process by having multiple reviewers examine a product to make sure that what happened with Rite Publishing doesn't happen again. I regret that I missed their open content declaration. In my defense I'll just say that it was difficult (for me) to locate due to its non-standard location but ultimately that's not a good defense. I think having more than one person try to locate this information in the future will reduce the chances of that happening again. I've already sent an email to Steve apologizing for the issue and am planning to try to see what I can do to improve relations with him, his company, and the others that support his company via their patronage projects. It appears that there is some degree of unhappiness amongst them about the d20pfsrd.com site and I'd really like to see if there is some way to improve that situation. Not sure if it will happen but I'll give it a shot either way.
Also, often it is impossible to know if a publisher is "screwing up" their OGL or they meant it to be that way.
Also, often it is impossible to know if a publisher is "screwing up" their OGL or they meant it to be that way.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. :)
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. :)
Agreed, but in the case of the Open Review, we don't attribute it to either, simply whether it "is" or "isn't."
I'm certainly open to just completely killing the page if most people do not see value in it. Well by kill I mean, not make it publicly available. I/we on the site would still use it for determining in the future what products we could reference/use at a quick glance. I even considered adding a column to the database that pasted in the products exact open content statement, so I/we could quickly look up what is and isn't open without having to go find the book/pdf/whatever and search through it again.
Just a quick note...Alluria's Remarkable Races has been Pathfinder for a long time now, and needs an update on your table.
Just a quick note...Alluria's Remarkable Races has been Pathfinder for a long time now, and needs an update on your table.
We don't yet have anything from Alluria reviewed on the table. If you mean the quote we have in the "Publisher Comments" field:
"Alluria Publishing is planning to release a Pathfinder compatible version of the Remarkable Races line which was previously only available for 4th edition D&D. You can learn more about Remarkable Races from our website at www.alluriapublishing.com."
I just copied and pasted that from the entry in the Pathfinder Compatibility Registry for Alluria. Is there different information you would like listed there?
By the way, the CUP has to be one of the most reasonable policies a gaming company has instituted and I love Paizo for it.100% agree (if not more). Without it, Wayfinder would not be possible. :)
Yes, Wayfinder and PathfinderWiki are my two favorite things about the CUP as well.
Steve Russell
Rite Publishing
Ditto.