From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rogers
Cadenhead
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 3:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] Consolidated Remarks
<< I take it you're new to the open source community? >>
Then you take it wrong. I am very aware of open source, including the HUGE
subculture with open contempt for any profit motive. One of my favorite
things about OG is that, so far at least, that viewpoint is far less
prominent than it is in open source.
<< The biggest reason why
programmers don't screw over the terms of the GNU license isn't fear of
legal reprisals. It's fear of community scorn. >>
You're talking to different developers than I am. The developers I interact
with typically cannot bear the legal entanglements that GNU entails when
their bread-and-butter is on the line. Others are driven away by the
extremism of the subculture.
<< If you think everyone's
going to be open-minded about publishers who use OGC without ever
contributing their own OGC, check out Slashdot the next time a GNU
license violation becomes news. It's like tossing a bunny in an alligator
pit. >>
No thanks. The ideological extremism exemplified by slashdot is an ill I
would hope OG can avoid.
And once again: I cited four concrete examples of benefit from my scenario.
The community benefits; but because it does not benefit in the fashion you
prefer, you just refuse to acknowledge there is any benefit there. The rest
of us will be glad to enjoy the benefit.
<< >In other words, you want no participation by creators who do not share
your
>extreme ideological views.
"Take a penny, leave a penny" is not an extreme ideological view. >>
"Leech" is an extreme ideological view. I posited a scenario in which a
creator made a positive contribution to his customers and thus to the gaming
community. Because he did not also conform to your ideology, you would call
him a "leech". That's extreme.
<< But, yes,
I want to create an environment in which OGC users feel compelled to
contribute OGC, either to win the approval of the community or avoid the
wrath of nimrods like me. >>
They are compelled: compelled that any portion of a work that is derivative
of OGC must be OGC. That is the purpose of the OGL, and a good thing. But to
then declare a "leech" anyone who makes use of OGC but contributes no new
OGC -- perhaps even has no new OGC to contribute, in the example I cite,
since the entire product is nothing but adventures built using existing
components -- is to cross the line into a zealotry that is NOT in the spirit
of OGL. The spirit of OGL is NOT "If you use, you must contribute"; it's
closer to "If you derive, you must contribute; if you have new rules, please
contribute; if you contribute more than these, we'll all thank you." That
spirit is civil and encourages participation. "Leech" is simply an
invitation to NOT participate, and thus damages the gaming community.
Martin
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
