> Lizard
>
> More Concern:This, and other clauses, seem to undermine the utility of
> the OGL to smaller publishers, while enhancing it for 'big names' --
> thus adding fuel to the "Open Gaming is Commie-Capitalist Plot!"
> flamage.
Huh?!? Commie-Capitalist? I think you don't know what that means. I sure
don't. Is that like a conservative reactionary? ;-)
> That is, under the OGL, I can write a module which is compatible with
> D&D, using OGLed material by Cool Designer Johnathan Tweet -- but I
> cannot SAY anything more than "This module is based on the D20SRD", just
> like thousands of other modules are.
>
> This is not a PERSONAL concern, since I have no commercial aspirations,
> but from the perspective of general acceptance of the OGL, I think it's
> important to consider. There are a lot of people circling, looking for
> any sign that the OGL is a plot/trick/fraud/deception, and they'll leap
> on any wording which seems to give an advantage to WOTC.
You seem to be disagreeing with the heart of the Open Gaming concept. If I
write a nifty Linux utility and publish it under my own name and the GNU
GPL, and Red Hat also publishes it, who do you think will get better
exposure? You can't close open material.
Of course this gives WotC an advantage - in exchange for using their beach
and not having the lawyers kick sand in your face. I thing it is a fair
exchange.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
