woodelf said, "Given that there are, among others, the Creative Commons licenses, which address all of these concerns, why must one use the WotC OGL in order to have an open-content game, or support "open gaming"?"
Well, my 2 cents follow: I agree wholeheartedly that the Creative Commons or the Free Documentation licenses would have been ideal (well, ideal in supporting my ideals <g>). That being said, Ryan, it seems, pushed the license as far in the open as WotC would have allowed without balking. It's not free ala the Stallman camp's definition but it is free ala the Raymond camp's definition. Any more openness would've likely had WotC back off the whole thing. <begin hints of a faustian conspiracy theory> If I didn't know any better, I'd say he went out of his way to put DnD as far into the public domain as the owners would allow. Hmmm, did he have an agenda that was not entirely corporate-master friendly? <end hints of a faustian conspiracy theory> I'm shocked he got that far. It could be better, but hey, when you win the lottery, you don't complain about paying the taxes. Know what I mean? ;-) -Tom Caudron _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
