Thanks Faust.
"Faustus von Goethe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This post very eloquently addresses the issue of OGL and D20 by comparing it
> to similar efforts in the software industry. Note that this post does not
> represent my opinion, although I was aware of Sun's Java effort and its
> parallels with OGL & D20.
What was also not mentioned is what MS did "wrong"--they wrote a
"windows-specific" Java that didn't work with non-windows Java very well,
IIRC. The equivalent in D20 would be taking D20 and writing something that
doesn't work at ALL with any other game... or making a so-called D20 game
"closed."
> <BEGIN REPOST>
> WOTC's current move is very similar to what Sun Microsystems did with
> the Java programming language. Sun created a new programming
> language, called Java, and tried to push it as some sort of open
> standard. It's openness extends to the point that I can write any
> program I want in the language and say that it was written in Java.
> Sun then registered the trademark "100% Pure Java" and essentially
> makes people pay to use that trademark. Usage of the "Java"
> trademark, however, does not require payment.
What's wrong with this? Think about it--if you want to be "pure", to check
with the folks who wrote Java in the first place. Assuming Sun checks the
code over, it sounds good to me. (Being a naive gamer like I am...)
> Something irked the software community, though. While Java was
> somewhat open, Sun holds the keys. Java can not evolve on its own --
> Sun will always have the final say on what is or is not Java.
Was Java marketed as Open-source? Not EVERY software incentive meant for a
wide audience is O-S, after all.
> The
> problem with this is that Sun has big marketing (and litigation)
> dollars to attack anyone who wishes to propose something very similar
> to Java that might compete in the marketplace. Just having big guns
> is one thing, but Sun showed that they were willing to shoot. When
> Microsoft tried to make its own version of Java (and call it Java),
> Sun opened fire on Microsoft.
See what I said before. If MS had made a brand-spakin' new programing
language that was LIKE Java, but all-new, and called something different, all
Sun could do was spend its dollars on calling MS a rip-off--or take MS to
court and lose.
> Granted, I am writing about a couple large, powerful companies here.
> However, the history of litigation has shown that large companies are
> just as willing to open fire on a few dissenting individuals.
Exactly--if you don't play the game by the rules. But if WotC decides that
the written rules are all that there is, what's to worry about?
> So, my point is that the establishment and marketing of a new,
> specialized trademark is a tool to limit a product's openness.
I'd say that it has the EFFECT of limiting a product's "openness," but this
isn't the purpose--the purpose of a new, specalized trademark is to make
money, something that a lot of .com companies have forgotten.
> It's
> the willingness to attack companies and individuals that might have a
> chance to compete that short circuits the open nature of a product.
I cry corporate prejudice! Just because Sun and MS might be lawsuit-happy,
and TSR once was lawsuit-happy, doesn't mean that WotC or Hasbro will
be--especially after they saw the negative PR from TSR's claims.
> (BTW, anyone have any suggestions on a term to use in place of
> openness? Openicity, perhaps? ;-) The D20STL, combined with some big
> marketing dollars, is used in this case to restrict the practical
> openness of the D20 game system released under the OGL. If the theory
> of network extenalities holds in this case, then the D20 system would
> not really be open. (Not in a practical sense -- the open/free
> movement is about the spirit, not the letter of the law.)
I don't see the connection here, I really don't. The D20STL is a way that
lets other people use WotC's "D20" trademark. The trademark itself is a way
to ensure that they make money off of their "open" project, thus giving them a
reason to continue.
Name a (corporate) wholly open-source project that turns a constant profit,
and buit itself from the ground up. Then tell me how many other open-source
projects have NOT made a profit.
> Something I wonder -- should the D20 rules be released under the OGL,
> what happens if someone slaps on character creation and advancement
> rules and calls it something catchy, like "Frogs and Fiends?" The new
> game would be practically identical to D&D. Would it catch on? What
> would Hasbro do to stop it? (They could spend marketing dollars
> against it, or they could litigate it's copyright holder(s) to
> bankruptcy. Anything else?)
> <END REPOST>
Hasbro would probably look at what happened to Apple and early TSR, and just
decide to out-sell the darn thing. In any case, based on the Theory of
Network Externalities "Frogs & Fiends" would actually HELP D&D more than it
hurt D&D.
DM
Looking for a game? I DM in Upstate NY, twice a month at Artemis Games in New
Hartford, NY (a suburb of Utica)
Even better, I've got irregular games where I live, in Charlton (near Albany).
Drop me a line and we'll game!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM: Planesdragon ICQ: 26106342
____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
