From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rogers
Cadenhead
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 5:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Open_Gaming] Thoughts on OGL
<< At 03:35 PM 8/19/00 -0700, "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I believe that the process I have followed will deliver the best, most
>effective Open Gaming License possible, and may be the one process that
WotC
>will accept for the release of the D20 System.
>The OGL is >not< a WotC product license. It is not a D20 license.
Of course it is a WOTC license. It was written by a WOTC employee trying to
maximize benefit to WOTC. There's nothing wrong with that, but scolding
people who would like a genuine community-drafted license is a bit much. >>
I respectfully disagree. Read what Ryan said more carefully: "The OGL is
>not< a WotC PRODUCT license. It is not a D20 license." (Emphasis on
PRODUCT is added.) The statement has been made -- entirely beyond my
comprehension, and not actually by Maggie, whom Ryan was addressing -- that
the proposed OGL is solely a license for D20 or D&D. It is not in any way,
shape, or form a license for any specific WotC product. It is rather a basic
framework license under which OGC may be produced; and the effort has been
made to make it a framework license under which Wizards' legal team shall
endorse opening up a limited license on their Intellectual Property. It is
entirely correct that "It was written by a WOTC employee trying to maximize
benefit to WOTC"; but that does not change the fact that it has also been
carefully crafted to support a wide range of OGC. We may disagree on whether
the range is wide enough; but even my short time on this list has shown me
many instances where Ryan carefully considered the concerns of the community
at large (as represented by the list members). In my reading, I did not see
Ryan as scolding, but as clarifying.
<< You're trying to have it both ways. The OGF is not a public effort; it's
a
private effort that has tried to be responsive to public feedback. The
decision-making has always rested solely in your hands -- to my knowledge,
no
publisher of competing rules systems has been invited to be a director of
the OGF. Maybe it will turn out well, and I'm looking forward to seeing the
licenses when they become final, but it's a benevolent dictatorship that
wants to be called a democracy. >>
It is absolutely correct that the OGF is currently a private effort; and it
MAY remain so. Heck, it may die on the vine. But it is Wizards' stated
intention that, if they are satisfied that the effort will not basically
give away the farm, they will make it public. They have never claimed that
OGF is any sort of a democracy (yet). They have been open and above board
about their profit motive and about how they will drop any association with
OGF whatsoever if it looks like their interests cannot be adequately
protected. I can't see where Ryan is trying to have it both ways, since he
has already very clearly stated exactly the points you have made. Nowhere
has he made a statement to the contrary. All he has done is try to stop the
wildfire spread of the misconception that the OGL is all about D20 or D&D.
It would not exist without D&D; but it is designed for a much larger
purpose.
Martin
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
