On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
> > 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.
[...]
> 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.
Ryan, you are in no position to tell other people what I
want. Contrary to what you say, I have clearly stated that I would
prefer to work with a system which has *less* open content for it
than the d20 system. I am not looking to get anything. I don't
publish anything for money, and any fame is purely incidental.
The deal is purely the other way around. I have spent time
and effort contributing to OGL projects, not to mention cash spent on
WotC and third-party OGL products (when none of my personal campaigns
use d20). The only thing I have gotten out of it is a heavy dose of
legal arguments and veiled accusations from the likes of you.
So, as far as this generous "gift" goes, well -- you can
keep it.
- John
P.S. If anyone wants a Players Handbook, DMG, Relics and Rituals, and
assorted d20 modules cheap -- email me with an offer.
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
