> Okay, let's suppose.
>
> The first thing that happens is that half the d20
> publishers in
> existence, and a fair number of the non-d20 OGL
> publishers, go
> searching for their respect content, and if
> _anything_ is out of order,
> they get the thing shut down pronto. They make every
> de
On Apr 26, 2004, at 7:04 PM, Tavis Allison wrote:
I think the links to debates taking place elsewhere that have been
posted to
this thread suggest that there is a big problem facing the industry.
Not necessarily. I don't think it's been demonstrated that electronic
"piracy" - defined as broadly
At 4/26/2004 11:32:00 -0700, Clark Peterson wrote:
> Believe me, if there was some need to standardize this
> amongst the "big kids" it would get done IMHO. Despite
> differences, if there was a big problem, the industry
> is small enough that a few phone calls could get
> things resolved. Tha
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 15:15, Clark Peterson wrote:
> Unbelievable.
Ditto.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ogf-l-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Collins
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 12:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] "Stealing" OGC
>
> Without going into the discussion, I don't think that there's anyone
> stopping anyone else from using th
> My final say on this. If you don't like the way the
> license(s) work,
> DON'T USE them. If you don't want to loose all your
> sales because someone
> gives "your" OGC away for free, then DON'T RELY on
> OGC to sell books.
Every time I read posts like this, I forgive every
publisher I have
On Apr 26, 2004, at 11:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Part of my problem fully accepting the situation as untenable is that
it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because it's declared to be
untenable people don't try to make the change, and things remain
unappealing vaporware criticisms. B
On Apr 26, 2004, at 11:32 AM, Clark Peterson wrote:
There is some bickering, that's true. Most everyone
tries to get along. But there are, as I understand,
various hard feelings here or there over past products
or prior dealings or from events at prior employment,
etc. But it isnt as contentious a
My final say on this. If you don't like the way the license(s) work,
DON'T USE them. If you don't want to loose all your sales because someone
gives "your" OGC away for free, then DON'T RELY on OGC to sell books. The
setting material is supposed to sell the books, not rules expansions or
l
In a message dated 4/26/2004 2:21:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's really easy to end
up with a long and ultimately futile venture and just become bitter,
and I don't think there's so much good will or enthusiasm in the world
that we can afford to waste it lightly.
> it's never a question of getting everything done the
> way you'd like.
> It's only a matter of figuring out what you can
> leave as less than
> you'd like, because you _must_.
That is the truth. And, frankly, some of the "legal
stuff" is the last to get done and the most rushed.
Your point is
On Apr 26, 2004, at 10:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Much obliged.
Very glad to help, actually. I hate to see anyone with good will and a
willingness to work hard waste their effort, and one of the most common
causes of wasted effort is just plain not understanding some dimensions
of the pro
In a message dated 4/26/2004 1:40:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not impossible, just hard. But it's what it would take to get the
attention of these folks.
Thanks for the clear and well-argued perspective about the types of supporting documentation that should be su
In a message dated 4/26/2004 1:35:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I did not do it, so if there is a problem, I am not part of it, yet. I
just don't think it is right for a publisher to put out a book (or 3 or 4)
full of almost nothing but OGC (80% or more in some cases),
As a publisher, I don’t have a problem supporting other publishers with
my OGC, if that’s what they want for their book. Of course they have to
follow the rules concerning OGC, as I did.
Jonathan M. Thompson
President, Battlefield Press, Inc. (http://www.battlefieldpress.com)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Apr 26, 2004, at 9:54 AM, jdomsalla wrote:
So, your snide comment aside, the only reason "busy"
publishers wouldn't be able to involve themselves would be from a lack
of
desire; their "busy-ness" seems to allow them to qualify already, so
how
much time-investment could there really be other
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:10:21 -0700 (PDT), Clark Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Honestly I have felt quite strongly to give away for
free huge chunks of a
particular publishers OGC,
And that, right there, is why publishers will continue
to do what you dont like. becasue many are afraid that
> Honestly I have felt quite strongly to give away for
> free huge chunks of a
> particular publishers OGC, just because they went to
> such lengths to
> obfuscate what is and is not OGC and 90% of their
> product is obviously OGC
> to anyone who knows what to look for. I haven't
> done it, tho
> I personally think it's foolhardy to do an OGC
> extract day one and
> distributing it widely. That may sink somebody's
> peak sales a bit and discourage them
> from publishing stuff later. Legal? Sure.
> Ethical? I can't say something is
> unethical if I've intentionally licensed somebod
>Ugh. In gaming at least, in practice such things end up dominated precisely
by those who have the time and obsession to put into it because they're not
busy making products anyone really wants to buy.
Actually, if I were to rate products based on their re-usable OGC, there are
more than a score o
Thanks for the link.
Re: the link above, one critical point, which is sometimes lost in the
thread
is that some parties are specifically recommending waiting 6 months to a
year
to release OGC extracts for people to use. Others are suggesting doing it
day 1.
Without going into the discussion, I
> Now, one can argue that people aren't going to court
> now. People aren't
> going to court now, not because there aren't
> disagreements over licensing issues
> that should be resolved really in some fashion, but
> because it's unclear how
> the chips would fall in court.
People arent going
> Is it just me, or do others have a problem with this
> "only the big boys have
> the moral right to copy OGC" attitude?
Who are you talking about here? And what OGC copying
are you saying is going on by some people that others
are not able to do?
Clark
=
http://www.necromancergames.com
"3
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:55:44 EDT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To date, I haven't done this personally, but I do not fault anyone for
doing
this.
How do others feel?
Honestly I have felt quite strongly to give away for free huge chunks of a
particular publishers OGC, just because they went to su
In a message dated 4/26/2004 12:21:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
I think this is not that necessary. It would be convenient to have boilerplate language for an agreement, but nothing more.
People who want to give you source citation rights do so readily with an email
At 4/26/2004 00:12:22 -0400, Joe
Mucchiello wrote:There are a few problems with this line of
reasoning. First, if they really wanted to
drive sales of UA they would attach text to the d20 license
allowing users to use the UA trademark. That
they haven't done this indicates that
In a message dated 4/26/2004 11:44:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Links please?
I'll post just one link to a discussion I'm not involved in.
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1486358&postcount=59
That discussion is hardly a secret and has involved some good po
jdomsalla wrote:
What might be more feasible is something of a "certified" status. For
instance, a group of Contributors (Fictional Title: Open Gaming Union)
develop a list of standards that they view as an "ideal"
OGL-interpretation (not the only possible reading, but clearly not in
violatio
At 08:14 AM 4/26/04, you wrote:
People aren't going to court now, not because there aren't disagreements
over licensing issues that should be resolved really in some fashion, but
because it's unclear how the chips would fall in court.
Perhaps more accurately, people aren't "going to court" beca
On Apr 26, 2004, at 8:13 AM, jdomsalla wrote:
What might be more feasible is something of a "certified" status. For
instance, a group of Contributors (Fictional Title: Open Gaming Union)
develop a list of standards that they view as an "ideal"
OGL-interpretation (not the only possible reading,
Links please?
_
Lose those love handles! MSN Fitness shows you two moves to slim your waist.
http://fitness.msn.com/articles/feeds/article.aspx?dept=exercise&article=et_pv_030104_lovehandles
_
On Apr 26, 2004, at 8:03 AM, Joe Mucchiello wrote:
And one of those amicus briefs would be the clarifying license. The
more people signed onto using the clarifying license, the more weight
it carries in a court.
And in practical terms, this would amount to a dozen or a thousand
fleas insisting
I think "licensing" may be a bit much, or (more to
the point) should only be half of it.
What might be more feasible is something of a
"certified" status. For instance, a group of Contributors (Fictional
Title: Open Gaming Union) develop a list of standards that they view as an
"ideal" OG
In a message dated 4/26/2004 11:05:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
people signed onto using the clarifying license, the more weight it carries
in a court. So whether I use the license or not, it's existence can
jeopardize my holdings in a court.
>>
I'll agree that an am
At 10:27 AM 4/26/2004 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 4/26/2004 12:15:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
About the only thing it may offer is an
interpretation of the OGL that may jeopardize those thousands of dollars.
In fact, such a license, if widely spre
I posted this before, but it's now popped up elsewhere. Two _big_ OGC publishers have had reps come out and effectively tag people even discussing doing OGC extracts of their products as being "against the spirit of the OGL" and somehow taking their paycheck (and by one claim, their lifeblood away
In a message dated 4/26/2004 12:15:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
About the only thing it may offer is an
interpretation of the OGL that may jeopardize those thousands of dollars.
In fact, such a license, if widely spread may cause Hasbro to halt future
OGC releases.
I
37 matches
Mail list logo
