(Note, I find it funny that Jason responded when he wasn't one of the people
who caught my eye as being "guilty" of the screaming for open content.)
Jason said:
"You can release a game with OGC and still protect content."
Yes, and I will if I release anything.
"No, we are not. And TSR is no more."
YOU may not be, but I wager that some people HAVE forgotten and take it for
granted that D&D related sites are common and acceptable (legally even) now.
As for TSR being no more, that's a philosophical debate. :)
"This does not always happen. In fact, it rarely does. Most of the time,
the people who write big software start their own company. Big companies
would not pay that much for a programmer just because they created one
program."
I will disagree. People I know in programming have almost invariably
commanded higher salaries if their portfolio had more impressive works in
them, and public acceptance is impressive. We can agree to disagree, I
suppose.
"The Gamers."
The Gamers do not win if people who would otherwise continue producing do
not, as they cannot see any rewards beyond "thx d00d" . . . we lose if the
next "Ed Greenwood" stops producing campaign info because people reproduce
and hack to death his setting.
No where in gaming do people get hired for 6 figures. Period.
I will not stipulate further, though I do know what kinds of cars I have
seen in the WoTC parking lot. :) *wink*
"And that matters to me how? I do not plan on making a living designing
games. Do you?"
If I could supplement my income to the point where it became feasible to
stop working full time and instead devote my time to development of gaming
products, I would. I do not have this luxury, and suspect I never will.
Being a professional in the internet industry pays a little too well.
"When in truth, what the OGL is just legalizing what millions of players do
when the create their own spells for a game. Gamers had the idea long
before the GNU came along, they just gave a name to it."
And while legalizing it, allows for the further development of products FOR
PROFIT. Which is what this is about. I posted in response to people
saying: "open your product up or you're a gimp" . . .
"No, I never said that. In fact, you can do that. The problem is using OGC
material in products like that."
In what way is using OGC materials in that product bad? Say I add in 5
different OGC creatures, 3 magic items, and 3 spells. As well, I add in
numerous creatures from the d20 WotC product, and spells from the d20 WoTC
product (PHB), and magic items from the d20 WoTC product (DMG) . . . I give
credit to everyone appropriate (WoTC, the originators of the other OGC) . .
. what am I doing "wrong" in this instance? Nothing as far as I can see. I
didn't take closed content, all of it is either open previously, or
original.
"No, I never said that."
Then I guess I wasn't talking to you! :)
"d20 and OGL are two seperate things, like GNU. Like Linux. Before you go
bashing the OGL, please, at least learn what the goal is."
The goal is to allow people to share content. However, that goal is NOT to
allow everyone free reign on your personal intellectual property. If you
feel the need to open your conent in places, go for it. But why open
portions of your work which nobody else really has the need to muck in? Why
open the details of your setting, for example, when that merely allows
someone else to hack it up and cobble it together, and repackage it as
somethinjg you never intended?
I have absolutle NO problem opening appropriate content. But why throw the
barn door wide open when merely opening it a bit will suffice?
"Your views, while justified, are not what the OGL is about. I look at it
as
a way to protect my works while at the same time allowing people to use it
and expand on it."
Excellent, and you can feel free to open anything you want, but why tell
other people (as others on the list have been) that they should feel guilty
and like a "leech" if they choose to close the majority of their work?
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
