Hey Alex:
What you have just done is write a very good assessment of the "fine line"
that the "conspiracy theorists" (myself included) have been walking for
these last six months.
The answer to your questions can probably be summed up in the statement:
"There just ain't no other way to get the HOLDER of the D20 IP to
release it other than under these terms."
Like it or not, to play in the pool you must accept the limitations of the
lifeguard ...
Whether to accept the restrictions, THATS a decision that each developer has
to make for themselves. As was mentioned before, that DOESN'T mean you
can't actively lobby to get the restrictions relaxed.
Faust
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Actually, I have been thinking about what DM said in regard to Eric Noah's
>site. He has the d20 logo in several places and when the license for that
>is
>finalized he would be in violation on each page if he had not followed all
>procedures (the d220STLG says web page not web site). In addition there
>are
>things on his site which will eventually be released under the OGL (being
>based on the SRD) and would put him in violation if he didn't follow the
>OGL.
> (Maybe he has blanket permission in the works? and granted he doesn't
>really
>cover any other potentially competing systems).
>
>All this is because the OGL and d20STL are agreed to the minute you use (or
>download) any material covered by them. The thing is the more the OGL
>penetrates the hobby the less choice you have but to agree. It is the sort
>of subtle coercion that exists in the computer industry and which I think
>the
>game industry (tabletop RPG I mean) should stay away from. Copyrights and
>Trademarks should be enough. Wizards has proposed a solution that seems
>great because everyone wants to be able to "write D&D" and make money on
>their work (like you can in the open source software world with say
>Quake1).
>
>The problem is the OGL restricts you (from what you could do anyway) in a
>manner that increases Wizards' potential success in suing you, but you gain
>little. You actually have to be even more careful of what you do than you
>would be under regular laws. What benefit do you gain that you would not
>already have, if you complied with the law? Why shouldn't people be free to
>make things that work with a RPG system without special permissions? The
>contention that it dilutes brand assumes that the trademarks and brand are
>not enforced vigorously (which they should be anyway OGL or not). The OGL
>basically says Wizards assures you they won't sue if you follow the law AND
>additional restrictions and people think it is a benefit because Wizards
>could crush people financially whether their case had merit or not. Iron
>fist
>in a velvet glove treatment?
>
>In the open source world you gain access to things you could not get
>otherwise (when you use the GPL say) but in the OGL world I do not yet see
>where you are gaining access to things you couldn't anyway. I still think
>the OGL is headed in the right direction with the recognition that fans
>make
>the industry not the reverse (as TSR seemed to think). The problem is that
>the OGL really gives more protection to those who already have the
>resources
>to defend themselves and places greater burdens on those who would provide
>alternatives or try to simply capitalize on their own ideas.
>
>I wouldn't have a problem with the OGL at all if it simply dropped the
>extra
>protections it tries to grant to PI and Trademarks. Frankly, I don't see
>why
>the OGL has these restrictions except to facilitate the restrictions of the
>d20 material and SRD. I think the d20STL does a nice job of protecting D&D
>and Wizards, and the OGL should not be a vehicle for protecting primarily
>business interests as opposed to the general interests of fans. The extra
>burdens it places (as we have seen in the magazine debate) and a bit in the
>"OGL copy with every instance of " discusssions, are simply of little
>benefit
>to anyone except businesses (especially Wizards) at this point.
>
>I can hear the keyboards reving up to defend business interests as the only
>ones that matter because fans will do what they want anyway, etc. but that
>is
>not the way to model the Open Gaming Movement. Open access is a good thing
>and there are laws to cover abuses of what is accessed.
>
>BTW, I just put these ideas out to see what you all think. I am completely
>open to arguments against these views or clarifications of thinking, but I
>do
>believe that someone besides Wizards needs to examine whether the OGL as it
>stands, is good for the industry and before it dominates. You may have
>argued this to death before but that was before the release of a lot of
>material. Now the OGL is official and a lot of people are starting to look
>at d20, etc. I think the issue needs to be re-examined.
>
>-Alex Silva
>
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
