At 11:50 PM 26/06/00 -0400, Kal Lin wrote:
>YOU are the one extracting my quotes out of context and getting
>hot for something no one has ever said.
I'm leaving in a big chunk of quoted text, because I think my
interpretation of your comment was reasonable.
> >If you use open content more than fair use allows then you may
> >have your entire work seen as open content by someone. If that
> >someone also happens to have lots of legal clout and ability
> >to wade thru a long legal battle then your closed material will
> >likely become open content against your wishes.
> >
> >Nor do I even think the "spirit" of the OGL will be applicable
> >in many cases. What if someone created a set of objects and
> >monsters that became very popular? Someone else claims those
> >objects and monsters use the standard stat blocks and they
> >should be open content. The original creator claims those
> >objects and monsters are part of the story and are closed.
> >
> >This is purely hypothetical. Everyone could play nice and
> >respect everyone else's wishes (at least until there is something
> >worth fighting over *snicker*).
> >
> >If material does become pushed into openness against people's
> >wishes, I don't see it as being bad for the community.
Notice that there are TWO PARAGRAPHS between where you say "If you use
open content more than fair use allows" -- about which more in a second
-- and what I quoted previously, right at the end of the quoted material.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the comments were,
therefore, not closely tied together. Evidently, however, you'd rather
be known as someone who can't structure an argument -- and hey, that's
your call, I'm fine with it. I'm sorry I called you a thief because you
can't communicate effectively.
Now, to your comment about "fair use" above. It's not relevant. What's
relevant is the discussion of the Open Gaming License and what *it*
allows. The OGL allows a creator to close any work that isn't
derivative of prior open content. If the creator tries to close work
that *is* derivative of open content, then he's in violation of the
OGL, not anything to do with "fair use."
> >More
> >content is available for people to build on and increase the
> >open content pool. Sure, some of the creators who had their
> >stuff pushed open, might be upset and leave the community but
> >so what? They were making mostly closed material or they
> >wouldn't be such a target. Good riddance.
Now, this comment, which I hasten to mention is NOT taken out of
context, seems to say that creators should be ashamed of keeping their
original work closed, or should be pressured to open up material that
they would prefer to remain closed -- and it also seems to say that a
person who creates an entire new D&D game world, and happens to use D&D
rules from time to time (and correctly marks them as open) isn't
welcome in the Open Gaming community.
Or maybe that's just *your* Open Gaming community. I happen to think
better of the rest of the people on this list.
> >I may be a dreamer but I think this will eventually encourage
> >people do the "right thing". If people make most everything open
> >content: new rules, objects, monsters, spells, classes, etc.
> >while keeping the artwork and a four page background story closed
> >material, no one will feel the need to push their work open so
> >they can build on those rules/objects/monsters/spells/classes/etc.
This, frankly, reads like a threat. No one should feel a need to "push"
work open, because no one who understands the idea of copyright and
intellectual property would have so little respect for another's
creative efforts that they would feel entitled to appropriate it
without compensation. I find I've come back to thinking of you as a
thief, sir, and thus I have no desire to continue this conversation.
--
"People are stupider than anybody." | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Tom Lehrer | AIM: Talthybias
| ICQ: 19083015
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
