Rogers Cadenhead wrote:
> >From a consumer's standpoint, if I'm reading something that's part closed
> and part open, I'd like the smaller part to be an appendix (or something
> similar), not a bunch of small sidebars throughout the work. For example,
> a closed module could be published with an open section at the end describing
> new monsters and spells that can be shared.
That's exactly why I like the OGL the way it is. That's one way an author could
identify his OGC ("everything from this point on"). Not every author need sort his
OGC in his own product the same way. If you like appendices and I like sidebars, we
should both be covered by the OGL. The smoothest way, I think, to do that is to put
the responsibility of identification on the author, not the license.
Consumers probably will prefer content which is mostly Open, but that is not
going to happen, in many cases. Books of character classes or monsters, or other
"catalogs," may be primarily Open. Other authors (like myself) would like to share
some our work, contribute OGC, but not get everything taken away from us. Anyone can
and will use OGC and closed content in their homes games, regardless of how it is
labelled. This is how adventure modules have always worked. A lot more people, other
than just authors utilizing the OGL, will be reading the OGC, I hope. A lot of
consumers won't much care what's OGC and what isn't, because they won't have any
intention of distributing it.
In short, I don't think affording OGLed authors the most flexible protection
possible is going to affect the consumer or sales of OGC in any substantially bad
way.
word,
will
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
