>From: Rogers Cadenhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>At 01:17 PM 9/8/00 GMT, "Faustus von Goethe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Still waiting for just one valid reason - other than a fetish for rules
>(;>)
> >why OGL is better for free products than the "online use policy"...
>
>I've already listed several of these reasons once, so there's no telling
>if you will take note of them this time, but the reasons to use the OGL
>and D20 licenses over the online policy are as follows (presuming that
>the OGL and D20 licenses are finalized in a form close to what's offered
>today):
Thank you for reposting. I have seen *some* of these before and have
answered most of them already. I will re-iterate:
>1. OGL/D20 clearly establishes that you own the closed work you produce
>in conjunction with it.
This is not a valid point. Under US copyright law, ANYTHING you write
yourself is protected. It does not matter if it is in a fan-based
publication or not.
>2. OGL/D20 permits publication in mediums other than the Internet.
THAT is a very valid point, but is invalid as it relates to the point I am
making (fan-based + free distribution) UNLESS you hypothesize a FAN that is
so enamored that he wants to PAY to have his stuff printed out and given
away. I'm not saying this will not happen, but I am going to insist on
approaching the idea with a great deal of skepticism.
>3. OGL/D20 has no content restrictions, while the online policy
>discourages work that is not in keeping with WOTC's "respectable image."
A VALID POINT - but a meaningless one, considering the number of NET BOOKS
OF SEX SPELLS, and D&D DEMON WORSHIP sites I have seen. When there is no
enforcement, there really are no limitations.
>4. The online policy can be revoked at any time.
Not valid, for reasons discussed earlier. Sure the "license" could go away,
but the choice to "convert now" or "convert later" is a zero sum decision -
it will cost the same later as it will now, and the benefits of the "online
use policy" for free distribution so outweigh the OGL that a fan would have
to have that aforementioned "fetish for order" to want to try.
>5. The OGL establishes a common framework for using the work of others
>and allowing your own work to be shared.
Not valid. A matter of semantics - all "a common framework" translates into
is "a lack of flexibility". You can accomplish the same with the verbiage
you append to your files - something you have to do with the OGL anyway.
>6. Using the OGL capitalizes on the high interest in open source
>gaming.
Uhhh. Do you know something I don't know? Considering the number of fan
sites, I would say that the interest in FAN MATERIAL is (literally hundreds
of times) greater than the interest in open source material.
>7. Ryan Dancey has stated publicly that one of the goals of OGL/D20 is
>to replace the online policy, so there's no assurance from WOTC that the
>policy will still be around in a year.
Not Vald. Same as Number 4.
>8. WOTC is actively encouraging OGL/D20 work to be produced and supporting
>it with a marketing effort.
Not valid. No, They arent. The OGF is a completely separate organization
from WotC. Don't you read the OGF web page? (see page 1, first paragraph)
Wizard's efforts to publicized D20 consist of a few of Ryan's interviews,
and the D20 logo (small and on the lower BACK cover of the PHB). These
"efforts" *PALE* in comparison to its efforts to promote D&D FANS and FAN
sites. WotC is GIVING AWAY much of its old material, spending hundreds of
thousands of dollars advertizing D&D, and actively promoting FAN sites
across the country (Are you AWARE of living Greyhawk?) I would be surprised
if their effort in the OGL arena is more that 1/10 of 1% the effort they are
putting into promoting their fan base.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
