> woodelf > > i can take a bunch of existing OGC, and release it in a work that is > 99% made up of closed content. IMHO, that is "basically following > the first idea"--that it is possible to have closed works derived > from open works (not using "derived" in the specific sense that the > WotC OGL does).
But not closed material derived from open material. In your example the open material is still open, and the closed material never was. If the closed material depends on the open material in any way, it must be open as well. Your assertion that the OGL follows the philosophy "you must be able to do whatever you want with the work (including close it)" is literally and figuratively untrue, because you cannot close open material. The best you can do is place open material in the same work as closed material, but this has NO effect on the openness of the open material. > the fact that a stance is not practical is, IMHO, no reason not to attempt to > realize it. Do you have a cousin named Quixote? > i only apply my standard of openness to those things that wish to label > themselves "open". use of personal definitions which vary widely from the generally accepted definition within a specific context makes it very difficult to communicate effectively. -Brad _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
