Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="chatdemon" data-source="post: 253008" data-attributes="member: 228">Morrus:I do agree that wholesale repackaging and distribution of everyone's OGC isn't what the OGL is designed for, and would hurt the industry by encouraging publishers to close more of their content.OTOH though, look at the Interlock/link(whatever they call it this week <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ) thing that Green Ronin and others are doing. Sharing more than the OGL and D20STL require. This is what I mean by the spirit of the OGF.When Robert Romano first suggested an OGC archive, he explicitly stated he would not reproduce anyone's OGC without their consent, yet the industry types that replied almost unanimously belittled his efforts, and it did lead to some nasty flamewars on the industry lists that basically proved my theory about the print publisher's attitudes toward the little guys. What saddens me is, if someone like Monte Cook or Clark Peterson suggested this same thing, it would be hailed as the sliced bread of open gaming, but since a little guy suggested it, it was ridiculed and ignored.YM(and opinions)MV of course, I'm just calling it like I saw it when it went down.(edit)Also, the 'OGL isn't exactly 'open' ' argument is one I see a lot. My thoughts on the matter come from Ryan Dancey's (self serving, IMO) article which blatantly, and repeatedly compared the OGL and OGF to the GNU thing, and Linux in particular, read it here: <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/md/md20020228e" target="_blank">http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/md/md20020228e</a></blockquote>

Verification