> From: John Kim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 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. All OGC is open. All the SRD is OGC. Therefore, all the SRD is Open. Not all of D&D is in the SRD. Therefore, not all of D&D is Open. It will not matter what license you use (Action System - which nobody here has publically seen yet as far as I know), the GFDL-varient OOGL, or any other licensing structure - there will be issues of copyright infringement >because the copyright law itself creates them<. You cannot find a copyright license that stands outside the issue of copyright law. Complaints about the depth of the gift you have received should not be confused with complaints about the freedom conveyed to you by the license that enables that gift, because doing so is intellectually dishonest. The License is not the issue here; the issue is that you want someone to give you something that they do not wish to give. You are free to ignore the whole SRD. You can use the OGL with a whole new set of OGC that you create on your own, free from any 3rd party copyright. That you have access to the SRD is >an additional benefit< to having access to a strong, effective, open content license like the OGL. > 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. I'd be curious as to what he thinks those might be. Either the content is Open, or it is not Open. There is no 3rd condition. Ryan _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
