Hello,
"Martin L. Shoemaker" wrote:
> The co-opted usage carries strongly negative connotations, which will NOT
> serve the community well. Just because it's commonly used slang doesn't make
> it polite conversation. The term is rude, pure and simple. I suggest some
> alternatives:
Fair enough.
> 1. Creator. After all, the person is still creating works.
> 2. Derivative creator.
> 3. Closed-content creator.
Perhaps that is my problem. Perhaps I just am misunderstanding something. If we
are part of the open gaming community, and closed content is not open. How does
that help the open gaming community.
I can see how it can help business, but they are in it for the money, and if the
money isn't there, than neither will they. Doesn't sound like much of a
community to me.
If I am part of the community, and I put out work that is used by a company to
make money, and the company does not return anything to me, in the form of open
content that I can use in return. How is that company contributing to the open
gaming community, to me?
If people from other walks of life, who are going to have a hard time with the
concept of giving ideas away anyway, see companies making money on all this
material and not contributing their own back to the community, driving them away
from the idea. How is that going to help the open gaming community?
It just seems to me that a closed content contributor and the whole concept of
open gaming don't go very well. But maybe i am missing something. I'm obviously
not in this for the money. So if someone could explain to me how using the work
of others to make money without giving anything back to the open gaming
community is a good thing, I would really appreciate it.
> And so on. You would be no happier if we co-opted a very negative term to
> describe people who want to push their view of what should be open.
I could see how it could be offensive, but I doubt you could offend me. I'm all
skin. :-) And I'm quite certain you could come up with something better than
'thug' anyway. :-)
I don't think that I like your alternatives though. They make it sound morally
acceptable, and I don't think it is. I will however stop using the "L" word
though, for civilities sake. :-)
Will have to come up with something else though. I have a few, but they are no
better than the last. :-)
> << 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. >>
>
> But they are steadfastly refusing to consider that ANY contributions are
> valid except for their own very narrow definitions.
All right, list all the contributions that a person contributes to the open
gaming community. Keep in mind that all this person is doing is taking other
peoples work, making money off of it, and then returning no open content in
return to the open community.
Have Fun,
Darren
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
