On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
> WotC is giving you a lot of free stuff. They're just not giving you all
> the stuff they could. And suggesting that giving you part of something
> is worse than giving you all of something seems silly to me.
From my point of view, I could really do without getting the
"free" gift of monsters which require that I write descriptions that
do a legal dance around saying what they are -- or descriptions which
I intentionally make different but then have to retrofit onto their
existing stats.
Personally, I have come around to the conclusion that I would
much rather work with a license where there are just a few things that
are open (i.e. Action system, OOGL, etc.) but they are truly open --
as opposed to d20 where all of the open things appear to be legal
minefields of potential violations. WotC OGL / d20 seems like a fine
thing for people who want to make money selling their D&D supplements,
but since I am not a D&D fan I will be looking elsewhere.
This is not just about the mind flayer, of course. That is
simply that cap after a year of legal issues discussed here. I think
the kicker for me was when Faustus emailed me that he had a huge
library of Open Game Content in editable format available, but that
he couldn't share that *open* content for legal and other reasons.
- John
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
