Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Dude" data-source="post: 4201144" data-attributes="member: 30511">I also wish that the GSL was as open as the OGL.However, I do not think my belief in openness, or anyone else's belief, justifies any one of us imposing that belief on others.&nbsp; We definitely should not force our beliefs on openness on a license-holder granting others access to their property (in any degree).&nbsp; Its their product and they are entitled to have their beliefs on how open it should be, and none of us have any right to force their product to be more open than they wish it to be.This is especially important when we are talking about &quot;openness&quot;.&nbsp; Openness is a fancy way of saying that some folks have access to someone else's product.&nbsp; When you take someone's product without their permission, that is stealing.&nbsp; It is still stealing if they let you take it for one purpose and duration, but you intentionally misuse it.&nbsp; For example, if I lend you my car to go to the store and you instead drive to Paraguay, you have stolen my car.&nbsp; It doesn't matter whether I have let you drive my car to Paraguay before, so you think I should let you do it again.&nbsp; If I don't give you permission to take my car like that, you have stolen my car.Now, when I say &quot;stealing&quot;, I am talking about stealing in a moral sense, not a legal one.&nbsp; It may be that clever abuses of the new GSL will be able to force greater openness on publisher's products without being busted legally for any violations of contract or law.&nbsp; Since we haven't seen the license, we don't know yet.&nbsp; However, just because a person can get away with something legally doesn't mean that the act is not morally wrong.&nbsp; If you force other people to &quot;share&quot; their product in a way they do not intend, you are taking and distributing their products without their permission- in other words, stealing.&nbsp; Illegal or not, it is wrong for any of us to consider forcing greater &quot;openness&quot; upon WotC or anyone else just because we believe it is a better idea.&nbsp; None of us has any right to make that decision for anyone else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Dude, post: 4201144, member: 30511"] I also wish that the GSL was as open as the OGL. However, I do not think my belief in openness, or anyone else's belief, justifies any one of us imposing that belief on others. We definitely should not force our beliefs on openness on a license-holder granting others access to their property (in any degree). Its their product and they are entitled to have their beliefs on how open it should be, and none of us have any right to force their product to be more open than they wish it to be. This is especially important when we are talking about "openness". Openness is a fancy way of saying that some folks have access to someone else's product. When you take someone's product without their permission, that is stealing. It is still stealing if they let you take it for one purpose and duration, but you intentionally misuse it. For example, if I lend you my car to go to the store and you instead drive to Paraguay, you have stolen my car. It doesn't matter whether I have let you drive my car to Paraguay before, so you think I should let you do it again. If I don't give you permission to take my car like that, you have stolen my car. Now, when I say "stealing", I am talking about stealing in a moral sense, not a legal one. It may be that clever abuses of the new GSL will be able to force greater openness on publisher's products without being busted legally for any violations of contract or law. Since we haven't seen the license, we don't know yet. However, just because a person can get away with something legally doesn't mean that the act is not morally wrong. If you force other people to "share" their product in a way they do not intend, you are taking and distributing their products without their permission- in other words, stealing. Illegal or not, it is wrong for any of us to consider forcing greater "openness" upon WotC or anyone else just because we believe it is a better idea. None of us has any right to make that decision for anyone else. [/QUOTE]

Verification