I'd like to explore this issue some more.
Ryan wrote,
>To handle the problem of people using Open Game Content to produce closed
>game software - taking all the fruits of the Open Gaming environment and
>putting them in a format that can't feed back into the joint development
>effort.
If a printing house takes Open Game Content and produces a
collection of Open Game Content which retains the rights to
everything not Open Game Content (additional text, images,
optional rules, editorial changes, layout, etc.) then what
contribution does the publisher make to the community?
The basic idea of forcing software producers to contribute
"a big chunk of their effort" to the community while letting
print producers retain all rights to their efforts seems
unbalanced to me.
At least, if someone were to create a software implementation
of some Open Game Content, the community now has:
1) proof that it can be done
2) hints on how it can be accomplished
3) something to reverse engineer
If we can live with the fact that some print producers will
use OGL'd content and not make any contribution to the
community then why do we mistrust the software producers so
much as to specifically require something more from them?
Regards,
--Kal
