In a message dated 09/18/2000 10:40:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> It's your two conditions "as long as they don't alter it" and "as long as
> they do it through the list" that mean it isn't as open as the OGL.
In the system I proposed, the contributions would be even more open than the
OGL from the perspective of Dunandralis. To the gaming community we are just
another big campaign setting. But to the members of Dunandralis, we are a
100% open work. We need a type of OGL for _within_ Dunandralis, not for our
association with the gaming community. The key is that Dunandralis is
public, not private.
I believe that this cycle has merrit and should be considered part of the
open gaming movement. Members of Dunandralis-l will be able to feed off of
eachother's ideas without the need to argue over who owns what because they
would know that all members of Dunandralis are bound by some sort of open
content license. (Hey! What about doing an Open Content License for world
creation teams like Dunandralis?)
I agree that this system isn't for everyone, but Dunandralis is a _group_
project and we want to keep it that way. There are plenty of mediums for
people who want to contribute independent ideas and keep their rights to
their ideas.
Why do this? Some of us believe that if an idea is argued over, criticized
and expanded upon by as many people as possible that it will be far superior
than what one person alone could have accomplished.
However, it is for logistical reasons that ideas _have_ to go through
Dunandralis-l and then the Content team and then the Editing team. Some
online world creation projects seem to think quantity is quality and they
rush to get everything they can up on their web sites. We want everyone to
contribute to Dunandralis, but not at the risk of sacrificing continuity,
quality, legitimacy, and peace.
Maggie
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
