On 17 Dec 00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about [Open_Gaming] Reply to Rasyr:
> I clarified some of your objections in my reply to Clark
yes, you did.
> Taking the larger issues of compatibility claims in general:
> 1) the market rule is buyer beware. The OGL restrictions aren't a consumer
> protection, they are there to protect publishers from having people dilute
> their trademarks and infringe on their copyrights. Furthermore, a claim of
> compatibility is just that, a claim. It is not a defacto statement of truth
> nor does it imply a promise that must be met to the consumer. There are laws
> for fraud, etc. which cover all sorts of scenaios like this, and computer
> software providers avoid lots of it with EULAs.
Ahhh, but a false claim can hurt the whole. If a company makes
such a false claim (putting the fraud issue to the side), the bad
publicity alone can hurt the overall efforts....
> This is because you have miscontrued my post as a personal objection to the
Quite possible.... I never claim to be flawless... On the contrary, I
am full of flaws...
> Sorry if I get offended by that characterization but many seem able to
> respond to posts on this board (even ones that seem very opposed for whatever
> reason to the OGL) without resorting to putting down the poster. Many of
> your arguments against what I said, while well taken, also seem to show that
> you misunderstood what I was getting at. That could be my fault or yours.
>
Not meant to put you down, just trying to point out that the
attitude your posts were giving was 'seeming' to be a little naive at
times.
> In any event, The OGL may have existed eventually without the money beacuse
> my uunderstanding has been that Ryan believes in the concepts personally.
> Much of the Open Gaming Foundation is his personal work not a result of the
> quest for money. Wizards may not have adopted the OGL without the money but
> there is no telling where it may have ended up anyway.
>
Yes, the OGL may have existed without money, but it would have
failed without a high profile, popular system to go with it.
Ryan has said as much, that in order for the OGF to succeed, it
needed a system to be used with it. A system that was widely
recognized and used.
> This also brings up the issue of applicability. The OGL is being put forth
> for all companies to use, not just Wizards. If as you say, the OGL exists
> soley to make Wizards money and no one else, then it will die. The whole
> point is that it should exist to serve everyone, not just Wizards. I have
> nothing against Wizards and no sour grapes (maybe one or two :)) but that
> doesn't mean I or anyone else will just line up willy-nilly and follow their
> lead wherever they want to take us.
>
I never said that it existed solely to make Wizards money, only
that if WOTC would not have supported it, it would not have
happened. At least not now. In order for the OGL to succeed, it
needed a system to back it.
Also, it is important to remember that WOTC is taking a risk here
as well. By releasing the SRD under the OGL, they cannot pull it
back later.
Also, nobody has asked you to to follow, willy-nilly. Quite often the
advice of consulting a lawyer has been given to those who are
considering producing products withthe OGL.
> BTW, what is that TANSFL... thingo mean?
>
It comes from a book by Robert Heinlein. TANSTAAFL means:
There
Aint
No
Such
Thing
As
A
Free
Lunch
*************************
********TANSTAAFL********
*************************
Rasyr (Tim Dugger)
E-Mail:
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Work:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WebPage: http://www.rpghost.com/rasyr/
Last updated: October 6, 1999
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
