>From: Christopher L Weeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Faustus von Goethe wrote:
>
> > HOWEVER, the reality is indisputable. The fact that Wizards' owns
>outright
> > your only license fundamentally makes your foundation irrelevant.
>
>You keep saying stuff like "your only license." It's not the OGF's
>license.
I'm sorry. I mispoke. I should have said "The only license you are
currently supporting." I thought my intended meaning was obvious.
> > This morning at 10:00 they could walk into your office and hand you a
>letter
> > that states that neither your nor the foundation had the right to ever
>again
> > distribute or discuss that license.
>
>And they would be wrong.
They would be morally wrong and it would (at this time) probably be a bad
business decision. "I believe" they would be legally within their rights.
>The license is there to be used. Ryan could publish
>OGL stuff using the license and deriving work from other previously
>published
>OGC.
Provided WotC did not rescind the right to distribute the license.
> > *piff* - no license? = no supporters, no IP, no volunteers, no products
>- no
> > D20 - no press coverage - no relevance.
>
>Nope. And the OGF does support, according to Ryan's statements, the
>broader
>open gaming movement. To whatever extent it exists.
According to Ryan's definition of open gaming, it doesn't exist.
> > Until you carry and support additional licenses - and those licenses are
> > being used - the foundation AS IT IS exists solely at Wizard's
>discretion.
>
>Nope. Ignoring the legal intricacies of whether the OGF exists at all, the
>OGF
>has been created. It is. It is not under the control of WotC. And if the
>WotC
>management team all got together and wished real hard, it would still be
>there.
>At least if Ryan wanted it to be there.
I'm not saying it would cease to exist. It exists, it does belong to Ryan.
And (semantically) it is independent. I'm saying its relevance would
diminish to almost zero if WotC made that decision - or if they decided to
back out and not release the STL.
I'm not saying this to advance any conspiracy theories, or to bash Ryan, or
WotC, or anybody else. But if you are going to discuss the independence of
the foundation from WotC you HAVE to consider these essential factors.
The notion that Ryan (as owner of the FOUNDATION) would NOT be influenced by
these considerations is, well, ... silly.
> > Further, the right to distribute the license >can< be revoked - this is
>the
> > essence of the problem with the permission to distribute NOT being
>contained
> > in the license itself.
>
>But the right to distribute the license is de facto included by requiring
>the
>distribution.
I did not think this was the case? Am I wrong?!?
>I think they would have a hard time trying to pull the license
>back now.
I agree, but I do not think it would be as hard as you think. It would
involve an economic decision about whether the negative publicity was worth
the economic benefit of avoiding competition.
I think it highly unlikely, but it is POSSIBLE. But at this time it IS only
a relevant point if you are discussing the independence of the FOUNDATION.
It is true that "he who has the power to destroy a thing" essentially has a
great measure of control over it.
Faust
_________________________________________________________________________
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
