> Joe Mucchiello > > At the risk of sounding obnoxious, I've been using the internet since > 1986 and as an old-timer, TSR's online policy did not have any impact > on people I knew who played D&D.
YMMV. > > That isn't quite what I meant. Where you have a business model, you > > have investment. Where you have investment, you have a desire to > > protect that investment - thru legal action if necessary. IF they > > were to turn off the entire d20 project by cancelling release of the > > material under the gentleman's agreement, then it would create quite > > a financial incentive for all those companies based on it to try to > > convince WotC that doing so is not in their best interest. > > But, by holding the d20 license they can make the hoops you have to > jump through smaller and smaller until you just cannot do it any more. That's a different situation. I apologise for using the term 'd20 project' to refer to WotC-released OGC. It was confusing. The question was specificly regarding OGC, not the logo, and I was answering that question specificly. The fact that publishers used the OGC under the logo program doesn't change the risk they took to use the OGC in the first place. > Oh, I know. I just couldn't let the PR Nightmare go. No, people on > lists like this would be outraged. There'd be "told ya so's" in the > rpg.net/pyramid/d20weekly discussion groups. But normal gamers wouldn't > really notice. Lets hope we don't find out. -Brad _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
