I have to say I agree with Kal here. Lobbying for fewer restictions and a
more truly "open" environment is something that we all will benefit from in
the long run.
The difficulties we have been discussing with producing a D20 periodical
that provides open game content AND reviews of products highlight just one
of the glaring ways in which the licenses could be improved.
Faust
>From: Kal Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Clark Peterson wrote:
>
> > And lets skip the "moral outrage" stuff. Limits on use
> > based on a licensing agreement is a core principle of
> > contract/license law. Dont act like this is some
> > uncommon thing. It isnt.
>
>The moral outrage people experience is that the OGL
>is misrepresenting itself as being open. It makes
>certain things extra closed, over and above current
>usage. That's not open. How much sharing and reuse
>has happened in the community so far?
>
>It seems to me WotC doesn't want people to refer to
>their products and use the OGL. I don't see anything
>wrong with asking for clarification or complaining
>about it once a month. Some people are not comfortable
>entering into the OGL and using a loophole to refer to
>WotC products anyways.
>
>I don't know what to call it but telling people to stop
>trying to clarify or improve their situation leaves a
>certain amount of distaste.
>
>--The Grinch
>
>
>-------------
>For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
