Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1488233" data-attributes="member: 6398">Well, that was a &quot;summed up&quot; statement, but what you end up with as open is: All Charts, All Tables, All Stat Blocks, Spell Blocks, etc., and the rule itself.&nbsp; Essentially, it's a simple matter of re-explaining the rule in use.&nbsp; The rule, and everything about it, is the OGC.&nbsp;I have considered this as a possibility.&nbsp; However, in the end, does it effect me?&nbsp; The worst that will happen is they are told to &quot;open it up&quot;, while the version I made is already completely open.&nbsp; It's also an issue of the above list; when you start adding in tables, stat blocks, etc., a product could easily skim the 5% mark with enough spells, monsters, and tables.&nbsp;Well, I don't think it's against the &quot;spirit&quot; of the OGL; if it has a spirit, it's &quot;share the rules&quot;.&nbsp; What some people are doing is retaining copyright control over their expression.&nbsp; While they understand that their rules can appear in 50 different products, what they don't want is their expression of that work appearing in 50 different products.&nbsp; To a degree, I can respect that.&nbsp;Do I wish they were more open?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; But I see no reason to be bustin' balls over it.&nbsp;And, in all honesty, if it is being done to prevent their rules from being re-used, they are really only prolonging the inevitable, assuming the material is good (and if it isn't good, it's protected better than any editing trick coupled with legal mumbo-jumbo can ever hope to accomplish).&nbsp;Like I am.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;But is this because the OGC is &quot;crippled&quot; or because no one wants to take the time to give it legs?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bendris Noulg, post: 1488233, member: 6398"] Well, that was a "summed up" statement, but what you end up with as open is: All Charts, All Tables, All Stat Blocks, Spell Blocks, etc., and the rule itself. Essentially, it's a simple matter of re-explaining the rule in use. The rule, and everything about it, is the OGC. I have considered this as a possibility. However, in the end, does it effect [i]me[/i]? The worst that will happen is they are told to "open it up", while the version I made is already completely open. It's also an issue of the above list; when you start adding in tables, stat blocks, etc., a product could easily skim the 5% mark with enough spells, monsters, and tables. Well, I don't think it's against the "spirit" of the OGL; if it has a spirit, it's "share the rules". What some people are doing is retaining copyright control over their expression. While they understand that their [i]rules[/i] can appear in 50 different products, what they don't want is their [i]expression[/i] of that work appearing in 50 different products. To a degree, I can respect that. Do I [i]wish[/i] they were more open? Yes. But I see no reason to be bustin' balls over it. And, in all honesty, if it [i]is[/i] being done to prevent their rules from being re-used, they are really only prolonging the inevitable, assuming the material is good (and if it isn't good, it's protected better than any editing trick coupled with legal mumbo-jumbo can ever hope to accomplish). Like I am.;) But is this because the OGC is "crippled" or because no one wants to take the time to give it legs? [/QUOTE]

Verification