This is (another) repost verbatim of a sentiment expressed on the
"opengaming" discussion board set up by Domininon Games. I am reposting it
here for the sake of discussion because it clarifies and coalesces negative
opinions of the OGL and D20 efforts. Sincere apologies to those of you for
which this is a cross-posting.
This post very eloquently addresses the issue of OGL and D20 by comparing it
to similar efforts in the software industry. Note that this post does not
represent my opinion, although I was aware of Sun's Java effort and its
parallels with OGL & D20.
Faust
<BEGIN REPOST>
WOTC's current move is very similar to what Sun Microsystems did with
the Java programming language. Sun created a new programming
language, called Java, and tried to push it as some sort of open
standard. It's openness extends to the point that I can write any
program I want in the language and say that it was written in Java.
Sun then registered the trademark "100% Pure Java" and essentially
makes people pay to use that trademark. Usage of the "Java"
trademark, however, does not require payment.
Something irked the software community, though. While Java was
somewhat open, Sun holds the keys. Java can not evolve on its own --
Sun will always have the final say on what is or is not Java. The
problem with this is that Sun has big marketing (and litigation)
dollars to attack anyone who wishes to propose something very similar
to Java that might compete in the marketplace. Just having big guns
is one thing, but Sun showed that they were willing to shoot. When
Microsoft tried to make its own version of Java (and call it Java),
Sun opened fire on Microsoft.
Granted, I am writing about a couple large, powerful companies here.
However, the history of litigation has shown that large companies are
just as willing to open fire on a few dissenting individuals.
So, my point is that the establishment and marketing of a new,
specialized trademark is a tool to limit a product's openness. It's
the willingness to attack companies and individuals that might have a
chance to compete that short circuits the open nature of a product.
(BTW, anyone have any suggestions on a term to use in place of
openness? Openicity, perhaps? ;-) The D20STL, combined with some big
marketing dollars, is used in this case to restrict the practical
openness of the D20 game system released under the OGL. If the theory
of network extenalities holds in this case, then the D20 system would
not really be open. (Not in a practical sense -- the open/free
movement is about the spirit, not the letter of the law.)
Something I wonder -- should the D20 rules be released under the OGL,
what happens if someone slaps on character creation and advancement
rules and calls it something catchy, like "Frogs and Fiends?" The new
game would be practically identical to D&D. Would it catch on? What
would Hasbro do to stop it? (They could spend marketing dollars
against it, or they could litigate it's copyright holder(s) to
bankruptcy. Anything else?)
<END REPOST>
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org