>"Nicholas H.M. Caldwell" wrote:
>
> > If the material was published as Open Game Content, and you republished
>it
> > adhering to all the provisions of the OGL, then we would have neither
> > cause nor desire to object. If we publish material explicitly marked as
> > Open Game Content, then the original creators are deliberately and
> > voluntarily donating it to the community. They still receive the credit
> > for having created it.
> >
>This relates to something I've been considering. I will often buy a
>supplement just to get a few pages of material I really want. Under OGL,
>however, I (or someone else) could 'harvest' the open gaming material
>from published sources, and put it on a web site for anyone to use.
>Thus, any new monsters, spells, sub-rules, magic items, etc, which
>appear in commercial modules but which are OGLed could end up on such a
>site.
There are folks who have already announced plans to maintain such a
"clearinghouse" site for open content - it is a logical extension of the
OGL.
If your motive is profit, the obvious solution to this dillema is to release
"teasers" as OGL, keep most of your stuff closed for the sale of the
supplement, then (as demand for purchase wanes) release that content to the
community.
The benefits will come over time - after all, Linux wasn't created
yesterday.
Faust
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
