Ryan, I agree in principle & I will explain below. I also feel the
Foundation should have their own FAQ - mine (as I have stated all along) is
INTENTIONALLY to foster a couterpoint to the "official word" from the "WotC
team".
I have to say I do not agree with some of your statements, though.
>From: "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Faustus von Goethe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >From: "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >My first personal opinion is that a closed-rights copyrighted FAQ for
>an
> > >Open developent project is an oxymoron.
> >
> > Which precedent would you like to discuss first?
>
>I have no problem with someone copyrighting a FAQ. I have a problem with a
>"closed rights" FAQ that can't be distributed.
>
>Here's a link for the GNOME FAQ:
>
>http://www.linux.org.uk/~telsa/GDP/gnome-faq/meta.html
For the record, that is not the GNOME FAQ. The GNOME FAQ is at:
http://www.gnome.org/faqs/gnome-foundation-faq/
(appropriately on the GNOME site) ... and is copyright � 2000 by Dan Mueth
and Havoc Pennington. It is NOT distributed under the GPL.
Further, here are links to the Apache Software Foundation, the Open Channel
Software Foundation, Open Channel Software Foundation, and the Free Software
Foundation:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/FAQ.html
http://www.opensource.org/faq.html
http://www.openchannelsoftware.com/
http://www.gnu.org/provide.html
All of their FAQs are copyrighted, and (with the exception of GNU) NONE of
them are marked as freely distributable. This is not surprising with GNU,
considering their particular philosophy.
It is important to note that the GNU philosophy is NOT shared by the OGF, as
their (our) license specifically provides for protection of copyrights - for
good reason.
>It's released using the GPL.
>
>Here's the statement from the GNU Emacs FAQ:
>
>"The FAQ may be copied and redistributed under these conditions, except
>that
>the FAQ may not be embedded in a larger literary work unless that work
>itself allows free copying and redistribution."
That is common for many FAQs, and I have all along intended to work towards
that. I personally do not intend to release control of my FAQ until the
Foundation exists as an entity distinctly separate from WotC and its
employees. I think the "editorializing" and my freedom to disagree serves a
very useful purpose at this time.
I also support the right of everybody else to express their opinion by
writing a FAQ, and really expect the Foundation to develop their own in
time. Perhaps Doug will take care of this for us - he has provided many
useful comments for my FAQ. I think he has started already.
>You find the same pattern repeated throughout the Open Source community.
>The FAQ's are copyrighted, and freely redistributable (though there are
>sometimes restrictions against commercial distribution).
This is simply not true. There is no such pattern. Some are, some aren't,
and the philosophies differ. Further, all of the organizations listed above
are established foundations, with bylaws, members, and elections. They have
both financial oversite, and are subject to a whole host of laws and
regulations that prevent them from misleading the industry.
NONE of this is true of the OGF as it stands.
>The point of an FAQ is to distribute information as far and as wide as
>possible. Having a restricted right FAQ means that the primary objective
>of
>the FAQ will not be met.
The primary objective of my FAQ (as I have said before) is to present an
alternate viewpoint - one not sponsored and paid-for by WotC (or its
employees). This is perhaps VERY valuable to the foundation in that
naysayers have an independent source who CONFIRMS statements made by the
foundation. I personally know of more than one person who was initially
skeptical who is now developing open content because of this. I have tried
to editorialize only to the extent to convince the reader that I am in fact
independent.
>Therefore, increasing the number of links and
>references to the closed rights FAQ degrades the overall value of the Open
>Gaming network and increases the need for someone to write an open rights
>FAQ to use in its place.
I'm not seeing the logic in this statement. BUT if an official FAQ is
written, I will be the first to link to it on my page, or mirror it there if
it is freely distributable.
>It is on the (long) list of things to do, and
>creating an open-rights FAQ has nothing to do with the current content of
>the closed rights FAQ (though it is riddled with errors, mistatements, and
>editorial comments that don't belong in an FAQ)
Thank you. ::sarcasm:: This is a particularly mean, unpleasant, destructive
and bad spirited time and way to bring this up. You could have mentioned
your concerns for instance in February when you first reviewed the FAQ, or
in June, July, and August when I made changes and posted them, asking for
comments.
As for the errors and misstatements, many are the result of timing as the
last update was prior to the release of the OGL. As for the editorializing,
it is intentional, and is specifically noted in the document that it is my
OPINION only.
The FAQ has *NEVER* been represented by me as the official FAQ for the
Foundation. Never.
Faust
See the FAQ (UN-officail, UN-authorized, and UNder fire) at:
http://www.earth1066.com/D20FAQ.htm
(also woefully out of date...)
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
