Hello,
Mathew Gray wrote:
> It was added by implication, not explicit statement. However the fact
> remains that if this person puts a lot of effort into producing something
> (thereby being creative) they are "branded" by you folks for not including
> open content.
If they always take, but never contribute, to the community, than I would expect
nothing less. Also note that a person generally isn't going to be branded until
quite a few products come out. Then it is obvious they are doing nothing more
than raping the community for everything it is worth.
I know it may sound a little harsh, but i have no sympathy for people that are
willing to use other peoples work without contributing anything back to the
community.
> "Also, I don't think anyone is saying that capitalism is wrong. I think they
> are
> saying that taking from the community without adding anything to it is
> wrong."
>
> A point to which I disagree. It is not wrong, and it is completely within
> the rights of those who choose to do so.
Then i think we will have to agree to disagree. I think it is *very* wrong to
use some else's work without any sort of exchange, in this case contributing
back to the community so that person has more to work with as well.
> In addition, nothing stops a person from producing 4
> adventures along the lines I've used as my example, and then producing a
> compendium of OGC items, including original creatures, classes, skills,
> feats, magic items, etc. Yet until they do their 5th product they have to
> listen to people calling them names . . . which may in fact prevent them
> from having any damned DESIRE to contribute.
<Shrug> Generally people aren't going to notice much until the 5th or sixth
product anyway, unless they happen to be fairly successful. Then people probably
will nail them to the wall.
Real easy to circumvent though, just give a product catalog type thing on your
web page, then people won't mind, since they can see that your fifth product
will be all open.
> Common courtesy is great, but why would I compromise a story line and plot,
> etc. that I have just to "throw you a bone" as it were? It's not my job to
> provide you with OGC in every product I release. If it doesn't fit, why do
> I have to force it? Because you think it'd be nice?
No one is saying it has to be every product. However, I also don't think it is
unreasonable to ask everyone to contribute either.
> "<Shrug> By the definition of leech, it doesn't matter how much time you put
> into
> it."
>
> Only to people who care nothing about the efforts people put in . . . which
> isn't me. I also don't use the term leech on people.
The term "leech" has nothing to do with time, quality, or quantity. All it deals
with is whether or not a person contributes to the community or not. What would
you call someone who has put out 50 adventures based on the work that the
community has done, possibly your own work in some cases, but yet has not
contributed a single thing to the community, to you?
> "If you use open content, basing your work on the kindness of others, and
> then
> don't add to the community, then yes, by the definition of leech, you are a
> leech."
>
> Again, your opinion.
How can a definition be my opinion? :-) It's like saying, the definition of 'A'
is one. And then the other person saying, that is your opinion. :-)
That has been the definition of 'leech' in the open source community for a long
time. It really isn't my opinion. It is what the word means in this context. Of
course you probably won't find that definition in Websters, but there are
probably a couple of online dictionaries we could look up if you really wanted
to play semantics. :-)
> > This is not GNU. This is not Linux. This is d20 (or OGL) and it's NOT
> the
> > same.
>
> "I've always wondered about this statement. How are the two not the same?
> Besides
> the obvious that with the OGL you can keep some of your work closed."
>
> Well, that'd be a BIG difference.
Which really isn't a difference. Both licenses deal with open content that can
be modified and distributed in any way.
> The GPL forces you to open your work.
> (And as Martin noted earlier, programmers DO curse this fact.) It is viral
> in nature, and the OGL is not. (Though some folks seem to want it to be.)
Really? I've always cursed the fact that others can use my work to make money.
> Yes, they did. So did Linus . . . and so did those folks working on the
> free gaming systems . . . but why does this mean that everyone else has to?
No, but that is the only way the community can grow and expand. If you don't
contribute, then you are hurting the community. Since i happen to be part of the
community, I take it fairly personal.
> A product will stand upon it's own merits. If I design a product, sell it
> for $10, and make 3 sales, that is MY problem. If I make a product that
> sells for 1000 units, great! If I release something for free, and it gets
> 50000 downloads, that's good too. But it is MY choice, and not yours. It's
> not for you to call me names or degrade my decision, or anyone elses.
Except, whether you sell it or not is immaterial to this discussion. It has
nothing, inherently, (although it does with me personally) to do with how much
money they make. All it has to do with is whether or not they are helping or
hurting the community. If they contribute, they are helping. If they are not,
but yet using the work the community has created, then they are hurting the
community as less people feel a desire to contribute. They not only hold back
there own ideas, but we also loose the ideas that others might have had, but no
longer contribute because of these people.
> Be a good member of the community, please. Lead by example. I can't tell
> you what I'll come out with that is OGC, because I'm not that far along yet
> . . . but if it's appropriate to what I am working on, you'll see it.
Ok, check out http://www.gamedistrict.net. Everything on that site will be
released under the OGL (once finalized). None of it is closed. With the people
that are working on it on my phoenyx list, what is on the site doesn't even
begin to scratch the surface of the all the ideas we have.
In fact Korath just recently came up with a neat way to multiclass at 1st level.
Keeps everything balanced without adding more than minimal complexity to
character creation.
> "So please don't degrade the effort and soul that people have put into the
> Open
> Source movement. I almost had sympathy for you until you tried doing that."
>
> I didn't, so you can feel free to have sympathy. :)
"It was added by implication, not explicit statement." ;-)
Have Fun,
Darren
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
