I can respectfully consider his main point (bubbles hurt the industry). But:
Quote:
|
No, the new license will not really be open in the sense that open licensed software projects are, but then the original iteration wasn’t either. It never became the community design collaboration that some envisioned; you didn’t see outside groups developing significant rules structures which were then folded into the main game.
|
This is the one place I would disagree; I would definitely call
OGL v1.0 "really open". It wasn't just "some" envisioning a community design project, that was explicitly one of the goals laid out by Ryan Dancey at the time (
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.a...md/md20020228e ):
Quote:
|
The other great effect of Open Gaming should be a rapid, constant improvement in the quality of the rules. With lots of people able to work on them in public, problems with math, with ease of use, of variance from standard forms, etc. should all be improved over time. The great thing about Open Gaming is that it is interactive -- someone figures out a way to make something work better, and everyone who uses that part of the rules is free to incorporate it into their products. Including us. So D&D as a game should benefit from the shared development of all the people who work on the Open Gaming derivative of D&D.
|
Sure, that project failed when Ryan left and the company quickly backed away from that strategy. But the architecture was certainly in place at the time to allow it.
Developed more on my blog a week before the recent announcement:
http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2008/0...se-of-ogl.html