On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Andrew Hackard wrote:
> Notice that there are TWO PARAGRAPHS between where you say "If you use
Yes it is a much more effective way of communicating when you
disregard something someone says two paragraphs ago so you can
call that someone a thief and generate a long thread. I guess
asking for clarification isn't a possibility.
I do not think the onus is on me to structure my argument so
you can understand it without clarification or even re-reading.
If you want to comment on my thoughts, get the facts right
before firing off hate postings.
> Now, to your comment about "fair use" above. It's not relevant. What's
I did not say fair use was especially important. I mentioned it
to head off "what about fair use" questions.
> > >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
OK so after I and others have posted that this discussion is about
people designating open material as closed (maybe an honest mistake
or maybe a questionable situation), you still continue to interpret
my statements in the WRONG context.
> > >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.
I am think you a thief for defending those who would take free and
open material and close it off from the entire community to which
it was given by the original author. For me to do this, I would
truly believe that material should be open, have some compelling
reasons to take the risks involved, announce to the world my
course of action and probably stand up for my rights in court.
On the other side, people may be quietly modifying open content
and designating it as closed (intentionally or accidentally).
Who looks more like the thief?
You may also think I can't structure an argument or communicate
effectively. I think your argument is based on latching onto the
wrong interpretation and distractions like my mention of fair use.
I'd rather be a poor communicator than someone repeatedly painting
another poster with something they never said.
You can be all hot and bothered about some context that no one
ever intended or you can start thinking about these issues in
the right context.
--Kal
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
