Hey now wait a minute!
Kal wrote:
>Anyone who would actually takes the time, effort and
>risk to push something open that they believe is
>truly derived from
>open content is showing respect for the original open
>content.
>Anyone who tells people to keep their hands off stuff
>they
>derived from open content is the one not showing
>respect.
The only thing we need to RESPECT is the will of the
author. If an author keeps something closed that you
think should be open--deal with it. That is their
decision, not yours.
And dont forget, copyright battles will be between
the licensee and licensor--not with you. The only way
a third party would get involved and "force something
open" would be to produce a derivative work on purpose
and egg the original author to sue you to protect his
or her copyright.
So I totally disagree with the statement:
"Anyone who would actually takes the time, effort and
risk to push something open that they believe is truly
derived from open content is showing respect for the
original open content."
Quite the opposite--I think anyone who would publish a
derivative work on purpose to force a law suit is not
some noble crusader but is instead an a$$hole of a
greater magnitude that the author who kept his or her
content closed in the first place.
This isnt about crusading legal battles to force
content into the open. If we start thinking like that
we will all become a bunch of jackals. Because there
will be much disagreement on what should be open and
what shouldnt. I dont want anyone arbitrarily
designating themselves as defenders of open content
and making a derivative of my work and expecting me to
sue just because they think I should have left
something open.
Rather than set up some star chamber of open content
do-gooders, I think what we should do instead is all
agree to respect the will of the author whether we
like it or not. If you think something should have
been open--email the author! Maybe it was an
oversight, or a misunderstanding of the license. Or
maybe because this is uncharted territory people are
just erring on the side of protecting their work.
All these emails I have been seeing about how this or
that should be open or there should be less copyright
protection, that is all well and good coming from
people who havent created anything. Once you make
something, I think you will see the validity of
copyright. If you build a house, you dont want me to
be able to just come and live in it in 25 years. If
you buy a car, you dont want me coming over and
driving it. Those things are the fruits of your labor
and are thus protected. Same with IP, though IP has
been limited by other policy reasons. It is still the
protected fruits of the author.
If I make new rules, I am probably going to open them
up--I havent decided yet. I am certain that I will
open up new monsters, magic items, etc. I am also
certain that I WILL NOT open my original text. But the
point is, the license allows that. If someone makes
new super hero rules and they dont open them up, that
is their decision. If they are wrong, WotC will
enforce a violation. And though that isnt a perfect
solution it is certainly better than any alternative.
And while I'm at it--you can give up the pipe dream of
a "spirit" section. No lawyer worth his salt would
include such a section. Contracts and licenses need
definiteness, not vagueness.
Remember, WotC is doing this for a valid business
reason: they are involving more people in 3e and they
are externalizing the materials that are only
marginally profitable (namely, modules and rules
variants--see ryan's article on saving d&d). Plus,
multiple product lines take too many business
resources. Thus, they are shedding those burdens and
in so doing they are giving us an opportunity. Which
in turn revitalizes D&D and makes it profitable by
allowing WotC to focus on their core products.
What they most certainly arent doing is creating some
giant hippy free-love, your work is my work commune.
Rather than "respecting the OGL," lets respect the
fact that we are each independent authors.
So Kal, if you want to open everything you make up--go
right ahead. Or if you want to close everything--go
ahead. Let's let WotC (the licensor) and the author
(the licensee) decide if the OGL has been violated.
Lets not turn on each other.
We all want the OGL and d20 to succeed. But suing each
other to "force content into the open" is about the
worst idea I have ever heard.
Clark Peterson
=====
http://www.necromancergames.com
"3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
