> Well, while I agree with you to a certain extent... > > I play the part of the bastard :) >
You've been pretty helpful Richard; it'd be hard to think of you as a bastard : ) > 25% isn't "Open". You can't have your cake and eat it too. I know it > sounds like semantics, but setting limitations like that destroys the whole > concept of "open". It is YOUR job to control what you want to allow others > to use from your document. I'd argue that the above provisions only make a publication less open in theory; in practice though we'd end up having a lot more open content. No publication I've seen so far actually includes more than 25% content from a single source; even Sovereign Stone which includes the entire text of several PC classes falls far short; thus this restriction, even if it had been part of the 1.0a OGL wouldn't have prevented anyone from producing the books they actually did. However I have seen publications do things like say "all material other than game rules already considered Open Gaming Content is considered Product Identity." This is incredibly less open than me releasing a wholly open content work under the two restrictions. Another publisher could use an entire chapter from my work and easily use any number of feats or spells. My feeling is that publishers feel they need to use language like the quoted bit to protect their product from wholesale reproduction and if they had a viable alternative they could be a bit more relaxed and then we'd see more cross-pollination, not less. The end result is what should matter for determining whether or not a license is more open or not. As a little analogy, the NFL has constantly been maknig rules to protect the quarterback and boost the passing game. Coaches look at these rules and blanch at all the holes in their defense; so they react by putting many of their best players on defense and resorting to a bit more blitzing. The very rule that was supposed to promote offense and protect the quarterback led to emphasizing defense even more and knocking the quarterback down pretty hard so he's shaken up for later plays. No one needs offense when it's easy to come by. > Besides, a change in the OGL like that would not > protect the released under the OGL before the new version. Someone could > simply choose to release it all under the previous 1.0 OGL (as stated in the > license). > That's true, but someone who released material previously under 1.0 of the OGL with a restrictive PI and Open Content designation could release their next version under OGL 2.0 and thus open more of their book for those willing to work under the new version. New publishers could always choose to release under 1.0 but they wouldn't have access to d20 material released under 2.0. Unfortunately, if you release under 2.0 you also wouldn't have access to material released under 1.0 but I'd assume the SRD could easily be released under both versions and, quite frankly, I can barely use material from other publishers that released under 1.0 anyway. I've incorporated perhaps a grand total of 250 words of non-SRD open content in a 136,000 word book. The d20 books from other publishers that I have sitting on my shelf have all done similarly. In many cases the material other companies produce doesn't fit into my setting, but there are a number of feats, spells, perhaps even creatures I'd be willing to use if I could just include a name, possibly a stat-block, and a pointer. > Interesting idea though. > > Richard Stewart > Sanguine Productions Ltd. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http:///www.sanguineproductions.com > Steven Palmer Peterson www.Second-World-Simulations.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
