If they'd made the names open, and closed the descriptions (but not the
stats), then othe developers could have used the monsters, requiring people
to buy the Creature Collection.
Simon Rogers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Walter
> Christensen
> Sent: 16 October 2000 21:53
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Open_Gaming] OGL - Creature Collection
>
>
> From: "Marc Tassin, Ilium Software" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Maybe I am way off but that is the point of having a unique product.
> >YOU thought of it and not someone else. Rules are one thing but I
> >absolutley disagree with the suggestion that anyone should have an
> >obligation (even if it is just a 'social' obligation) to release their
> >creative property as Open. This is a business. Give everything away
> >and there is no money.
>
> I agree that there should be no obligation for creative content. I can't
> imagine an economic reason why they don't want the names Open. The
> "undercut with a softcover newsprint version" doesn't hold up as
> that could
> be done anyway with the same stats and new names. I would think that the
> most economic benefit would be gained by opening up the names so
> they can be
> referred to in products (hopefully driving sales of the CC).
>
> Walter
> _________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
