[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Then why did they *bother* with the OGL at all?
Because the STL has nothing to do with open content -- just the usage of
a trademark. Open Content is the second half of the equation -- it
promotes the building of libraries of freely reusable gaming material,
driving the network effects. I can take many of the nifty powers and
abilities of the critters in 'Creature Collection' and reuse them
verbatim in my own work, without fear of any sort of copyright suit,
justified or not.
We have all hashed out here the fact that using that you could create a
book that was a virtual clone (albeit in different words) of the PHB and
put that into competition with the D&D PHB. Which is *exactly* the
situation they appear to not want to happen...
>
Not with their logo on the cover. But I believe Dancey has said he
relishes the competition -- if you think you can make a better D&D than
WOTC, go for it. The key is -- can you? Can you create something,
starting with the SRD, which is so much better than D&D 3e that it will
attract people despite the fact you can't set a WOTC-level price point
due to lack of 500K+ sales?
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
