[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What I want (I'm saying "I" here because I have no idea what the list thinks
> at this point) is a license that will allow the community of Dunandralis to
> act as a self- contained, open content, world creation project, but I also
> want to support the open gaming community in some way. Open gaming is about
> more than just game rules. What about world creation projects? Can't they
> support open gaming without sacrificing continuity? I believe they can and I
> think the system I have proposed is a step in the right direction for _group_
> world creation projects that want to be more than just fanboy sites.
>
You're trying to have your Kate and Edith too, as the judge said to the
bigamist.
"Open, or open not. There is no 'sort of'."
Either anyone can take your world content, mangle it, maul it, reshape
it, AND PUBLISH IT FOR MONEY, or it's not open. It can be collective
without being open -- look at the various 'shared worlds' in publishing
(though that fad seems to be dead -- when was the last one?). It can
contain content which is open mixed with content which is closed. But it
cannot be 'sorta kinda open, except not really'.
While 'open development' is of tremendous benefit to mechanics and 'game
lego' (monsters, spells, classes, races, etc), I think it is of notably
LESS value to worlds. A strong 'world team' is much better.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
