If you have something to say about my opinions, quote my message
and criticize it:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ogf-l%40opengamingfoundation.org/msg04773.html
not what you inferred from someone else's hysterical writings.
I haven't pointed at anyone for designating any particular thing
as PI or designating lots of things PI as a general practice. I
was explaining the usage of Monster Manual and I was suggesting it
is disingenuous to refer to WotC's products via euphemisms or
initials, especially after arguing for the PI clause. I wasn't
even suggesting a change to the PI clause at this late date.
At the risk of sprouting another lame opinion that I haven't
earned the right to have:
If your product is that great then not only do you deserve the
"phat coinage", we should thank you for generating more excitement
in gaming and giving us an example of how it can be done. I
consider the mutually productive scenario of "pretty penny +
phat coinage" a basic reason for open cooperation and that
it is much preferable to "pretty penny + whatever benefits
you may get from not helping someone else succeed."
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Grok wrote:
> No, I am not saying that you have to have a product on the shelf to have an
> opinion.. I am saying that those who want to preach about totally 'open'
> products should put up or shut up before going after Clark for IP'ing his
> product. Clark was basically being lambasted for wanting to protect his
> stuff.. I am merely defending that right by pointing out that the person who
> was most vocal hasn't proven that the open content way is better.
>
> I do know that there will be totally open content, and from people I respect
> on this list. However, the fact that they are comfortable enough to go Open
> doesn't mean that those who IP something are bad, or wrong, which is the
> direction that the other gimp wanted the discussion to go.
>
> -Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Neal Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > So nobody is entitled to an opinion unless they've
> > released a d20 product? I've seen this unpublished
> > vs. published pecking order get established on any
> > number of e-lists for writers; I'm sorry to see it
> > being promoted here.
> > So only those who have a product on the shelves can
> > comment, and all others should stick a sock in it?
> >
> > Neal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ogf-l mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
>
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
