Margaret Vining wrote:
> On an ideological level you might feel that they are not part of the
> "movement" but on an economical level they are.
No, on an economic level all parties involved belong to the software
industry, not the open source movement. They are not the same.
Maggie, I don't think I really disagree with you; I just don't
understand your reasons for saying what you've said. You said the IRS
should rethink how it assigns NPO status for "Open Source" groups
because they have an unfair advantage over for-profit orgs, but without
looking at specific groups we can't talk about what those advantages
really are. You said that Microsoft is being brought down by the Open
Source movement - which you later equate with a non-profit organization
- and that the IRS is supposed to prevent things like this, but the Open
Source movement is dozens of organizations, thousands of individuals,
and plenty of them are working for profit (and paying taxes). Many of
them aren't even American.
Red Hat, for example, makes its money by repackaging open-source
software and selling support for it. For $30 I get a nice CD and a
friendly voice to help me set up my computer. I'm not paying for the
software - it's available for free on the web. I'm paying for the
service of having it all put together for me and for calling their
support lines. Here's a for-profit company operating in the open source
sector - why should it be regulated differently than a company that
offers support in some other sector?
The Open Source Initiative, on the other hand, doesn't sell a damn
thing. They are an advocacy and certification organization. How are
they different from other non-open source advocacy groups, say for the
energy industry or a political cause? Should they be taxed differently
because they advocate things like freedom and open sharing of
information - ideas that threaten a business model?
Perhaps I'm just shocked by hearing someone saying that the IRS should
do something about it all.
You're right; Microsoft is competing against more than just products.
The Shared Source idea is there because they know they will have to
become a service provider, not a manufacturer. They want to lock in
businesses and home users to 'renting' their applications instead of
licensing them. That's what .NET and Hailstorm are all about.
Microsoft knows that it has to hold on to the lock to keep making money.
They're facing much stiffer competition than they ever have before;
greater than IBM, Lotus or WordPerfect in the eighties or Netscape in
the early nineties. It's an attack on the way they've structured their
business.
But you're wrong when you say it's the fault of non-profit organizations.
> I also enjoy talking about gaming much more than all of this confusing
> technical stuff, however, I think it is important for all of us to take
> a close look at what happens to the software industry.
What's confusing about it? We're not talking about hacking the 2.4
kernel here; we're talking about competing business models.
> My theory was that the open movement in the software industry
> is changing the business paradigm so much that there might be a need or
> an attempt to redefine some of the current business regulations.
Okay. I'll counter that the current regulations are stacked against the
open source movement. It will take an amazing amount of effort and luck
to suceed in the marketplace.
Until we talk specifics, we're both blowing smoke.
> > The d20 license is more Shared Source than Open Source.
>
> I would say that the d20 License is more Open Source than Shared Source
> and then say that the OGL'd SRD is even better than Open Source.
Wow! That's *quite* a claim. I'm actually flabbergasted. Can you
explain what you mean by that? Are you saying that the OGL is better
than the GPL, or that the SRD is better than Linux, or what?
> >On the one hand, Wizards bravely emulated Netscape by releasing their
> >"source code" with the OGL and the d20 STD.
>
> Don't you mean STL? ; )
*blink* Uh, of course. I can't believe I missed that. Twice. Oops.
> >Unfortunately, Wizards also retained absolute control over essential
> >subroutines in the kernel - character creation and experience - just
> >like Microsoft's Shared Source program. Boo, Wizards.
>
> That is nothing like the Shared Source program because WotC doesn't
> control who gets to use it.
It's like shared source because:
1) Wizards retains control over an essential element of the game,
effectively preventing redistribution in a useable form. If I can
freely redistribute 95% of a product, but not 5% of it, it's not freely
redistributable. By saying "copy all but not this", Wizards retains
control of the product and prevents actual redistribution. Microsoft
keeps 5% of their codebase under wraps to prevent even the possibility
of redistribution and retain control of their product.
2) Wizards locks gamers into purchasing their products. I cannot
play a d20 game without purchasing a Wizards product. I cannot develop
a Windows application without purchasing their software. I cannot even
see the code without being a major customer or partner. Sounds like
Shared Source to me.
3) A stated goal of the project is to reduce the number of games on
the market. (http://wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=dt20010417a) A stated
goal of shared source is to reduce the number of systems (phase 3,
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp).
Both goals are carried out by claiming "it will be better for the
individual customer." What neither points out is that it will also be
better for the last company standing.
> >Great business move: Wizards expands its product line/brand footprint
> >without the development cost, the d20 publishers get reduced development
> >costs (no need to make a new game) and greater marketing opportunities
> >by co-branding. But it's certainly not open source. I can't
> >redistribute a complete, working d20 system, nor are OGL games required
> >to publish their code in an easily reusable manner.
>
> I think you are confusing perspectives. What is important in one
> industry is not necessarily important in the other. What is important
> is how these two different movements change the industries they exist
> in. With that said the OGL is 100% open source as you define it.
So, are you saying that expanding one's brand footprint is one of those
things that is important in the software industry but not the gaming
industry?
Huh.
So, Ryan's listed as the Brand Manager in my PHB. He cites the Skaff
Effect as a major reason behind Wizards releasing their code. ("All
marketing and sales activity in a hobby gaming genre eventually
contributes to the overall success of the market share leader in that
genre." http://wizards.com/dnd/DnD_DoD_005.asp). And the open game
movement isn't about branding?
Huh.
I think you're right. I *must* be confusing perspectives here.
Also, please don't put words in my mouth. The OGL is not 100% open
source as I define it. I strongly believe in requiring the source code
be made available in a useable form (point 2,
http://opensource.org/docs/definition.html). The PI clause of the OGL
prevents the rapid evolution that results from the feedback process of
Open Source (point three). Oh, and it restricts rights that I normally
have under US trademark law.
I agree with Ryan when he says "there is a very, very strong business
case that can be made for the idea of embracing the ideas at the heart
of the Open Source movement and finding a place for them in gaming." I
applaud the move - I think it's great for the hobby, and great for the
industry, and great for Wizards. It's a complete reversal of what the
hobby knew before. But, like Microsoft's Shared Source, it's all about
business. I don't fool myself into thinking it's about freedom.
--
Skywise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.geocities.com/wanders_in_circles
There is nothing a flamethrower can't solve.
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
