Re: [Ogf-l] "Shared-Source"

[Margaret Vining]

>----- Original Message ----- >From: Skywise > > >How is an entity dependent on domination and control of an idea part of >the Open Source movement? This seems oxymoronic. On an ideological level you might feel that they are not part of the "movement" but on an economical level they are.  >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.? A process competes when it becomes more valuable than the product.  And I don't think we should talk about specifics because my comments are based on a one dimensional observation.  That specific observation was that Microsoft is using the word "shared-source" to represent something that looks like BS from where we are sitting and altruism from people who don't understand the difference.  I wondered why they would need to do that and after spending some time on the GNU page and others I came to the conclusion that Microsoft is competing against more than just products.   > 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 also enjoy talking about gaming much more than all of this confusing technical stuff, however, I think it is important for all of us to take a close look at what happens to the software industry.   Rather than compare each open movement as a direct parallel I think it is better to analyze each theory on its own merit and _then_ try it out on the other system.  My theory was that the open movement in the software industry is changing the business paradigm so much that there might be a need or an attempt to redefine some of the current business regulations.  Maybe it will maybe it won't, but whatever the answer is it is important to the gaming industry as well.   >> 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. I would say that the d20 License is more Open Source than Shared Source and then say that the OGL'd SRD is even better than Open Source.  >On the one hand, Wizards bravely emulated Netscape by releasing their >"source code" with the OGL and the d20 STD.   Don't you mean STL? ; )   >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.   That is nothing like the Shared Source program because WotC doesn't control who gets to use it.   >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. I think you are confusing perspectives.  What is important in one industry is not necessarily important in the other.  What is important is how these two different movements change the industries they exist in.  With that said the OGL is 100% open source as you define it.   >To paraphrase Jamie Zawinski, Open Source is not magic pixie dust.   No it's something better.  It's Open Source.   Maggie Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com