In a message dated 09/18/2000 2:14:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The problem is, what you're forbidding is the very core of any Open
> movement; the ability to modify and redistribute. Without that, it's
> not really "open" at all. What you're proposing for Dunandralis is no
> different than a closed commercial project.
You mean like the Forgotten Realms setting? With FR, the public cannot
create "official" content for it, nor can they sell any part of it. I'm glad
for that, don't get me wrong. However, what I'm proposing for Dunandralis is
a method to do just that. Anyone may contribute to it, and as long as it
isn't modified it _can_ be sold or distributed publicly by anyone.
That is very different from a commercial campaign setting. And it is "open"
compared to commercial campaign settings. The only reason for having it
closed in the ways it would be closed is for the sake of continuity.
How else do you propose that an ongoing project contribute to Open Gaming?
How do projects like Dunandralis contribute to open gaming without becoming
complete chaos? We could make a product and then stop, but this is supposed
to be an ongoing effort, a world influenced by as many gamers as possible.
I think world creation projects have a place in the open gaming movement, but
we have _one_ little problem. We need continuity.
Maggie
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
