> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug
> Meerschaert
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 3:33 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] I'm Game
>
>
> However, I don't see the collarary between "One needs to be able to make
> money from Open Gaming" and "One cannot make an Open Game without spending
> money."
No disagreement here. But I have lately seen a host of messages that
impugned the motives of anyone who might actually make money at this. I
crafted a number of rather rude replies, and deleted every one at the last
second. Except that last one, where I just finally lost all self-control. I
don't see where Clark or Hyrum or Paul or any of the others need to have
their motives called into question.
I KNOW that one can make an Open Game without spending money. I did it, and
Korath did it. Just do something ENTIRELY original.
And I BELIEVE you can make a derivative Open Game without spending money.
What you cannot do is make a derivative Open Game without some risk. Money
spent on a lawyer is a way of mitigating that risk. Careful research and
careful editing is another.
And you can also choose to accept the risk and publish anyway.
> Currently, this is the bias the OGL has--almost every fan site and
> not-for-money endeavor I've seen is entangled in legalistic fear. Thus,
they
> turn from even bothering with the OGL and simply stick to the "too small
to
> bother" defense.
Understood. I think cooperative efforts will be even more risk-averse than
individual efforts. I'll bet you could post your own stuff with some
confidence. You know the rules, and you know what risks you can handle. But
a group tends to have overlapping risk fears, and thus accepts fewer risks.
> With some kind of extra, "not for money" add on to the OGL, we can provide
> an easy route for these people. As evidenced by every newbie who balks
when
> told to "go get a lawyer", there is a definite niche for this; not for
> professional game producers, but for amatures and fans, for the kind of
> person who writes a game for fun and wants to share it, not for some
> idealistic cause or for his bottom line.
I understand the niche. I'm not sure if it can be addressed, practically
speaking. I'm not enough of a lawyer to understand how that could be
drafted.
> And you might not believe it, but some of the best minds who roleplay
don't
> write roleplaying games or modules or adventures for publication, don't
want
> to gamble on a business, and don't want to bother hiring a lawyer just for
> something they do for fun. If we avoid these people, or continually
squash
> them down, then the OGF (or, to be percise, "the open gaming community")
is
> no better than what its worst critics call it; a way for corporations to
> cash in on the "Open Source" buzz without really sticking to its ideals.
No one has squashed them down. No one has avoided them. But plain facts
about risks have been stated. And they need to be restated from time to
time, because new people are here every day.
Martin L. Shoemaker
Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com
http://www.UMLBootCamp.com
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
