Is the Traveller OTU going to be OGL?

[dmccoy1693]

msprange,

A discussion on RPG.netasks if the Traveller OTU is going to be OGL. Mytholder said that that decision is made two levels above him. I was wondering if you could give us a definite answer.

Thank you

 

[dmccoy1693]

Or if not OGL, but available to be licenced out for low/no (bats eyes) cost.

 

[MongooseMatt]

The OTU will not be Open Content.

 

[Lazy Wombat]

The OTU will not be Open Content.

How about the question below?

Or if not OGL, but available to be licenced out for low/no (bats eyes) cost.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Very unlikely.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

But, with the basic rules OGL, anyone could get a license and make their own ATU (Alternate Traveller Universe) and publish that.

 

[Lazy Wombat]

Which is all well and good if you *want* to do an ATU. Being able to build off the exisiting OTU has a lot of advantages.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Absolutely, and you can do that yourself all you want.

If you want to PUBLISH something that is supposedly Canon in the OTU, you will have to go through Mongoose.

 

[Lazy Wombat]

I think you're missing the point (possibly on purpose); I was only speaking with regard to publishing.

I'm personally disappointed that I couldn't, purely as an example, do a sourcebook of the Regina subsector in the Marches as a third party publisher, because there's no legal provision to be able to do so. I couldn't care less if I what I wrote was considered canon, I'd just like to support that specific setting as a 3rd party.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I'm personally disappointed that I couldn't, purely as an example, do a sourcebook of the Regina subsector in the Marches as a third party publisher, because there's no legal provision to be able to do so. I couldn't care less if I what I wrote was considered canon, I'd just like to support that specific setting as a 3rd party.

In effect, it would be no different to someone wanting to publish their own material for Babylon 5, Conan or Starship Troopers - it would be a big no-no. Just because it is an RPG property rather than film or TV, it doesn't lose any of its legal protections!

 

[Lazy Wombat]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that anyone should lose their IP rights. The fatal flaw in my thinking was that I was coming at it from the perspective of a very small third party which, in all likelyhood, would make little or no real money from its products. This of course doesn't take into account much larger, and potentially profitable, 3rd parties.

 

[dmccoy1693]

If you want to PUBLISH something that is supposedly Canon in the OTU, you will have to go through Mongoose.

Depending on how the licencing contract between Mongoose and Miller is written, you may have to go through both.

 

[AKAramis]

If you want to PUBLISH something that is supposedly Canon in the OTU, you will have to go through Mongoose.

Depending on how the licencing contract between Mongoose and Miller is written, you may have to go through both.

The really sad thing here is that, until 1984, GDW licensed out chunks of the OTU to various 3rd party companies.

FASA had a sector, Judges Guild had 4, and a couple of other companies had sectors or half-sectors.

 

[Lazy Wombat]

QFT

 

[dmccoy1693]

The really sad thing here is that, until 1984, GDW licensed out chunks of the OTU to various 3rd party companies.

FASA had a sector, Judges Guild had 4, and a couple of other companies had sectors or half-sectors.

Maybe if a 3rd party company proves themselves as a quality company (i.e. like how Arthaus, Soverign Press/MWP, and others proved themselves to be quality companies in the d20 days and got licencing deals with Wizards) they might more easily get a licence for an OTU sector. Time will tell.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I think you're missing the point (possibly on purpose); I was only speaking with regard to publishing.

I'm personally disappointed that I couldn't, purely as an example, do a sourcebook of the Regina subsector in the Marches as a third party publisher, because there's no legal provision to be able to do so. I couldn't care less if I what I wrote was considered canon, I'd just like to support that specific setting as a 3rd party.

I was not missing the point on purpose. I was trying to help you figure out a way to legally do what you said you wanted to do.

If you want to publish Traveller stuff that is not in the OGL, you will have to buy a license or go through someone who has a license. How much you make on it is irrelevent, you are dealing with intellectual property.

The Screen Writers Guild in Hollywood is about to go on strike to protect their rights to intellectual property, it is a big deal, even for a small operator.

 

[EDG]

I'm just wondering why people think that they're entitled to a "low cost" license to use the Charted Space setting. It's a license just like any other, why should it be cheaper than normal?

 

[dmccoy1693]

I'm just wondering why people think that they're entitled to a "low cost" license to use the Charted Space setting.

Entitled, no. Hopeful, yes.

It's a license just like any other, why should it be cheaper than normal?

Asking the question was valuable for two reasons:

1) He didn't say that they will not be licencing any part of the OTU. So this means that licencing possibilities are open. If the answer was, "No," instead of "Very Unlikely," then any kind of licencing hopes would be greatly diminished at that point, and

2) He clearly took a stance against low cost licencing. This would indicate (besides that he is a good business man, which many other things that Mongoose has done indicate similar) that he cares enough about the traveller name to see it done right and make sure that whatever part of the OTU is licenced out is taken care of properly. Someone that feels that said licenced sector is worth a low cost is probably someone that is going to do a low quality job.

So in short, how the question was answered told more then the answer itself. Licencing may be expensive, difficult to obtain, or even not Mongoose's to handle (depending entirely on their contract), so licencing is not something I am going to worry about right now.

 

[AKAramis]

The really sad thing here is that, until 1984, GDW licensed out chunks of the OTU to various 3rd party companies.

FASA had a sector, Judges Guild had 4, and a couple of other companies had sectors or half-sectors.

Maybe if a 3rd party company proves themselves as a quality company (i.e. like how Arthaus, Soverign Press/MWP, and others proved themselves to be quality companies in the d20 days and got licencing deals with Wizards) they might more easily get a licence for an OTU sector. Time will tell.

The Truth is that the companies getting licensed were NOBODIES...

FASA started with traveller supplements. They hit the bigtime with a property they couldn't have touched without a proven publishing history: Star Trek. Battletech also carried them aloft.
Judges Guild had been doing really cheapo (but fun) stuff for D&D and later for AD&D... and added traveller.
The Kieth Brothers got their start doign JTAS articles for Traveller, and launched their own label, Gamelords, from that start.
Digest Group likewise started as a group of fans with a Mac... and grew to develop the second edition of the game.
Games Workshop really got a major boost from selling Traveller under license in the UK.

Many smaller licensees produced a few odd books, then disappeared.

 

[dmccoy1693]

The Truth is that the companies getting licensed were NOBODIES...

Back in the day, sure. But just like how RPGs have changed from pure print to a growing PDF market, who gets contracts have changed to. With Mongoose at the helm, I'm willing to bet licences aren't going to be handed out like candy on Haloween, but those able to get a licence will be those with enough long term viability to pay the licence as opposed to just disappear in the middle of the night.