On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
> >Yes, the D20STL is not fully open either, but the OGL is[1]. What you
> >want is something like the D20STL, not the OGL for you stuff.
>
> Hmm... and yet, the D20STL is hosted on the OGL web site...
Don't you mean the OGF web site? There isn't an OGL web site as far as I
know. In any case the OGL is neither "open" or "closed" -- it is a
license permitting the publication of material that contains open and
closed content. And until the D20SRD is technically released under the
OGL, WotC has really not contributed anything toward "open" content - they
have merely helped (primarily by providing the legal work necessary) in
drafting a document which will provide for the publication of
"open" content. [Yes, there are those who've already published OGL/D20
material - if you want to see a real legal mess, try figuring out what
happens to said products and their progeny should WotC unexpected back out
of publishing the D20SRD under the OGL at this point. Note, I don't
expect this to happen, but for those who want to play at lawyering, have
fun.]
It does sound like the Dunandralis project would require another separate
license for the Dunandralis world portions of your works (limiting the
ability of others to alter the work, but permitting free distributions).
Clearly all these works would not be pure "Open" works but rather mix open
and closed content in exactly the manner permited under the OGL. The
world itself would be the "closed" content, while new rules (and material
taken from other OGL open sources) would constitute the "open" content.
Does this fit within the concept of Open Gaming - depends entirely upon
your view of open gaming, I say. Personally, I do think it fits but it
also illustrates why "open" in the gaming realm is not directly comparable
to "open" in the software realm.
alec
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
