[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The OGL says promise not to break the law and
> we won't sue.
No, the OGL says "promise to be open, and you can make derivitive works
off of this document."
There's a *big* difference. At a bare minimum, small companies can now
spend what they would on a new system on more creative avenues, like
settings.
> I am sorry but I have
> never heard of lawsuits except as mentioned by Wizards. I do think they
> exis! ! t but Ryan implies that everyone else is far more litigious.
> If Wizards
> doesn't want to sue and won't when you are following the law, then why
> should
> we buy into the whole "suits are making us do it" OGL argument?
Suits aren't making them do it. They're donig it because it's an
effiecient way to get people to use their rules, and it's "open" because
Ryan thinks that's good for game systems as a whole.
> Sorry but this is how I feel at times. Thw whole idea that a large
> company
> not just could crush you but will regardless of whether you are well
> within
> your rights is just irksome.
Yes, it is. Welcome to Capitalism.. thanks to the cold war idiots, even
the *idea* of an alternative system is heresey, and will be for
generations to come.
> Having the same company say sign this and you
> have nothing to fear, we'll all be buddies is oppressive in this sense.
> Anyone else get this feeling? I like the OGL and d20STL but somtimes
> it is
> just hard to swallow being told you have no rights any other way.
You don't have the right to do what the OGL allows--the construction of
derivitive works based on D&D. With the OGL, you can quote the SRD
verbatum.
The *only* thing than you can argue is that your work isn't
derivitive--but, like the industry apparantly says, you'll have to
"argue" it in the litigous sense.
DM
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
