Margaret Vining wrote:
> Nope. I'm arguing that entities (for-profit, non-profit, fan/hacker
> based... anything) who are structured to profit from the free use of an
> idea are more likely to survive in the open source community than an
> entity who is dependent on domination or controll of a popular idea.
How is an entity dependent on domination and control of an idea part of
the Open Source movement? This seems oxymoronic.
> Technically, Microsoft is being brought down by a widget designed by
an NPO.
<snip>
I think we do disagree; how does a process compete with a product,
exactly? Can we talk specifics? Which NPOs are you talking about? The
FSF? The OSI? Apache? Mozilla? Linus Torvaldis, Inc.?
> I think what I'm really trying to say is that "shared-source"
> has nothing to do with open source and my guess is that
> Microsoft is going to have to change or die.
Yes. This entire hubub is all in preparation for their .NET and
Hailstorm services, coming soon.
> And if a parallel exists
> in the two open movements: My theory is that the PI clause in the OGL
> will do nothing to soften the blow for RPG companies _in the long run_
> Like microsoft, they will have to learn to become less dependent on
> ownership of information and more dependent on utilization and
> contribution of information.
Ah! Very on topic; I like this much more, thank you.
> I feel like this situation shows that RPG
> companies may have no choice but to eventually participate in d20.
I fear this day, but perhaps for different reasons; if it comes, it
shows that Microsoft's tactics work all-too well. The d20 license is
more Shared Source than Open Source.
On the one hand, Wizards bravely emulated Netscape by releasing their
"source code" with the OGL and the d20 STD. Bravo, Wizards!
Unfortunately, Wizards also retained absolute control over essential
subroutines in the kernel - character creation and experience - just
like Microsoft's Shared Source program. Boo, Wizards.
Great business move: Wizards expands its product line/brand footprint
without the development cost, the d20 publishers get reduced development
costs (no need to make a new game) and greater marketing opportunities
by co-branding. But it's certainly not open source. I can't
redistribute a complete, working d20 system, nor are OGL games required
to publish their code in an easily reusable manner.
The OGL isn't the GPL. Of course, Wizards isn't Microsoft, either.
To paraphrase Jamie Zawinski, Open Source is not magic pixie dust.
--
Skywise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.geocities.com/wanders_in_circles
There is nothing a flamethrower can't solve.
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
