In a message dated 10/01/2000 4:10:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The fact that Maggie wants to be able to have Quality control over her
> setting, as well as having limitations to the distibution of the setting
> material (you can change any material but you can't distibute your
> changes to the public, but you can still distribute unmodified content
> which has been QC approved), already conflicts with the basis of what
> the OGL is about (The Unlimited ability to copy, modify, and distribute
> Open Content).
Just a note. I'm not talking about closing game rules. Those would stay
open. I'm talking about opening up the Product Identity 100% but keeping it
within a closed system.
For example, a group of people get together and brainstorm ideas for a d20
compatable module. Those ideas belong to everyone in the group but only for
the usage of that group. Anyone may join that group. The d20 game rules
stay open to the world, but the Product Identity is only open for people who
are willing to contribute through group effort. Thus, game rules stay open
and ideas stay open. I think some of you keep thinking that I want to put
game rules under quality control. I don't. Never did. I want to open
product identity within a controlled system for the purpose of world creation.
IMO, that's even closer to the spirit of open gaming than the OGL for _group_
world creation projects.
Regards,
Maggie
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
