> > woodelf >> >> i can take a bunch of existing OGC, and release it in a work that is >> 99% made up of closed content. IMHO, that is "basically following >> the first idea"--that it is possible to have closed works derived >> from open works (not using "derived" in the specific sense that the >> WotC OGL does). > >But not closed material derived from open material. In your example the >open material is still open, and the closed material never was. If the >closed material depends on the open material in any way, it must be open as >well. Your assertion that the OGL follows the philosophy "you must be able >to do whatever you want with the work (including close it)" is literally and >figuratively untrue, because you cannot close open material. The best you >can do is place open material in the same work as closed material, but this >has NO effect on the openness of the open material.
there is a spectrum, IMHO, with "complete freedom to do what you want with it" at one end, and "do what you want but it and all derivatives must remain open" at the other. IMHO, the WotC OGL is closer to the first end of the spectrum than the second. i never said it follows the first philosophy; i said that it is more like the first than it is like the second. you are free to disagree, but i'm not sure this is so much a matter of fact as of opinion, since it's pretty much a judgment call as to what elements to compare, and how "close" two ideas are to one another, so i don't think we can disprove one another, merely persuade. in my defense, i look at other open content licenses, many of which explicitly state that if part of a work is open, the whole work is derived from open content, and must therefore be open. i'm not sure this is a practical stance in any field, much less RPGs. and RPGs have a ready-made way to distinguish between two natures of content within them--"rules" and "setting"--so many of the arguments against non-viral open content licenses might not apply to the way the WotC OGL is being used in the D20 community/market. but, practical or not, i believe that the "anything that reuses open work is derivative" standard is *much* closer to the second philosophy, above, than is the WotC OGL--and it is the WotC OGL's rejection of that standard that, IMHO, divorces it from that camp. others may simply consider it a moderate stance within the 2nd camp. > > the fact that a stance is not practical is, IMHO, no reason not to attempt >to >> realize it. > >Do you have a cousin named Quixote? if people like Gandhi and MLK Jr. and Stephen Hawkings (sp?) had only followed "practical" courses of action, they likely never would've been remembered. i haven't the hubris to claim that my little stance on the openness of RPGs will shape the world. but i do think it's perfectly reasonable to try nad change the world so that what was once impractical becomes realistic. > > i only apply my standard of openness to those things that wish to label >> themselves "open". > >use of personal definitions which vary widely from the generally accepted >definition within a specific context makes it very difficult to communicate >effectively. if i ask you "is this open" you will likely reply "yes", "no", or "partially". IMHO, if the answer is anything but "yes", the it is not "open". and, AFAIK, until the advent of the WotC OGL, 'yes' and 'no' were the only possible answers (other than conglomerate works, did any previous open-content license allow mixed open- and closed-content works?). i really don't think "a typical person who is familiar with the work would answer the question 'is this open?' in the affirmative" is an unreasonable or unaccepted definition of "open". it may not be universal, it may be vague, but i don't think it "varies widely from the generally accepted definition." oh, and outside of this thread (and similar ones on what constitutes 'open'), i believe i've tried to either use further clarification (rather than catch-words), or defined terms as needed, when discussing things, rather than rely on my, or anyone else's, definitions in areas that aren't nailed down. -- woodelf <*> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.home.net/woodelph/ If any religion is right, maybe they all have to be right. Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them. --Sinclair _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
