> > woodelf >> >> 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. > >I guess the real question is what is of greater concern to you: whether a >specific bit of fictional material is "open" and stays that way, or whether >the work as a whole is "open". From the perspective of an author who's work >would be used, I have to say that in either case my material will always be >open, so to me (and to many) the point is moot.
i understand that stance, i think. part of the problem is deciding when something is "one work" and when it can legitimately be considered multiple works that share one physical medium (pair of covers, CD, whatever). clearly, a magazine is a collection of works. clearly, a novel is one work. where the line is between the two, however, is a lot fuzzier. an RPG is designed to function as one work, and often all of it is created whole-cloth (essentially) solely for the purpose of that work, yet it is often a collection of theoretically-separable parts: fiction, setting, mechanics, real-world data, layout/design, art, etc. even if you take the position that everything "derivative" of an open work should be open, when should the separate nature of those parts be recognized as making a single work actually multiple works, some of which may not be derivative of the open material in question? looking at this from a purely practical angle, i'm not sure i like the idea of writing a completely-open work, and someone else coming along and reusing it in a work that is otherwise closed and within which my work only makes up a small portion, but which simply wouldn't have worked without my work. i'm not sure that'll ever happen to me, personally, because i'm not sure i'll ever create something that good. but i don't like the idea of someone profiting (and i'm as concerned about mind-share profit as monetary) from my work, which i have specifically chosen to make open, without themselves making their work open--they're gaining the benefits of open content (reuse of others' content) without the ideal (releasing your own content). >As has been stated earlier, GNU and Berkley-licensed "open" works are >combined with proprietary code all the time and nobody at the FSF have >batted an eye. The core of Mac OS X is FreeBSD and MACH, but that doesn't >make QuickTime open source (nor should it). And while one can claim that >"that is software, this is different", or that "both are flawed but that >doesn't refute my position" I say that to take such an ivory tower position >is, in this specific case, self-defeating. i'm not entirely certain that they are different. i *am* confident that the same rules can't be applied to software as to books, but i'm not sure exactly how they must differ. and one of the things that i don't think is at all well ironed-out is the question of "derivative". frex, my initial belief is that "works with" is *not* a subset of "derivative", so the Mac GUI and other bits that sit on top of the Mach kernal (and other open bits) aren't derivatives, they're a separate something that works with an open bit. likewise, IMHO, "derivative" is being used exactly backwards [though perhaps in accordance with established legal precedent] in the RPG community. IMHO, an adventure or book of monsters or somesuch merely works with the D&D books, and should not be considered derivative. but a new game based on D&D should be, including perhaps significant chunks of the setting. if it (potentially) replaces the existing book, then it should be considered derivative, but if it is an addition to the existing book, it shouldn't--especially if it effectively *requires* the core books to be useable (as intended). similarly, if you can divorce your setting sufficiently from D&D to release it as a separate work (with none of the D&D bits), then do so, and only make the parts that *are* derivative open content (if you're so inclined--much like what they've done with Scarred Lands, except in my ideal world much less of what they've produced would have been *required* to be open, while much more of it actually would have *been* open). >The OGL is close enough, and the flood of SRD-based products is proof enough >for most of us. Claims to the contrary sure sound like sour grapes. i don't see how the flood of D20STL products says anything, one way or the other, about the open-ness of products using the WotC OGL. if anything, i suspect that there is at least one counter-force working, that being that a lot of commercial enterprises aren't going to be interested in fully-open-content products, because they probably aren't viable in a market economy. i'd argue that the flood of D20STL products is, if not simply an indicator of the popularity of D&D and the desire of others to build on that popularity, an indicator of the closed-ness of the WotC OGL, making it a viable commercial license by allowing proprietary IP in works released under it. and the joke is only semi-relevant, at least to what i'm trying to say. i'm not saying "it's not perfect, so why try", i'm saying "it's not perfect; let's make it better." of course, it being that my definition of "better" appears to be diametrically opposed to that of the vast majority involved in D20 projects, if not RPGs in general, i'm aware that i'm never likely to make much progress. but that doesn't mean i won't try. > > if people like Gandhi and MLK Jr. > >Oh please. Gandhi and King were EMINENTLY practical people. They found >ways to achieve their goals in the only manner that was both practical and >ethical for them. I have no idea where you are going with Hawking. all three were willing to, to use a much-overused phrase, think outside the box. yes, they implemented their goals in practical ways, but that doesn't change the fact that their goals were, initially, impractical in and of themselves. >I will leave you with a final thought. In a perfect world where Open >Content was universally understood to be your definition, the SRD would >never have been created. There would be no Red Hat, no O'Riley, no Creature >Collection, no Freeport. Personally, I prefer the flawed world to vacuum. perhaps. or perhaps it would all exist just as it does now, with one change: it would be referred to as "partially-open" or "semi-open" content. [though i'm confused as to why you think Red Hat wouldn't exist--when i got a version (years ago), there was nothing proprietary on the CD. has this changed?] -- 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
