Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 1516376" data-attributes="member: 2732">I think the problem those of us who disagree with you see is the following:Legally, the license leans on the side of being open.&nbsp; Publishers choose to use this license because it is helpful for there own products and to be compatible with D&amp;D.&nbsp; Again, you've emphasized that there is nothing we can do about that.&nbsp; However, some of us feel that posting copious amounts of text on-line for free from products is taking advantage of the flawed aspects of the license.&nbsp; We would rather ask the publisher if they would mind.&nbsp; I agree with Monte Cook, it is good form to ask publishers if they'd mind before undergoing these actions.People are free to do what they want, however, I do fear the consequences will be that a 4th Edition D&amp;D will be more closed, and that fewer publishers will participate if people take advantage of this.&nbsp; Time will tell if this great experiement fails or succeeds.&nbsp; In this case, we want to err on the side of caution.The license isn't as important to me as the economic survival of the people who provide such works.&nbsp; I don't think a publisher asking for restraint is a bad thing.&nbsp; &quot;Open Gaming&quot; was, as Ryan himself stated, designed to increase the market share of the hobby.&nbsp; You sort of reveal your &quot;subjective morality&quot; by calling whoever asks for this restraint as a &quot;jerk&quot;--the same thing you got mad at me about--and saying that it's an insult to &quot;open gaming&quot; to ask for a little more restraint.&nbsp; Wow, Open Gaming doesn't have any feelings, it's sort of like that erroneous meme that &quot;Information Wants to be Free&quot;...Information doesn't want for anything, it has no sentience.&nbsp; Somehow, I can't see people like Andy Collins, Chris Pramas, or Monte Cook as jerks for asking people to just use a little restraint.Is there any sort of benefit for the hobby to have rules that people are expected to pay for appear on-line?&nbsp; The marginalization of paid content into free content can't exist without severe consequences to the industry--and the industry is what keeps the hobby alive.&nbsp; If publishers feel themselves being exploited, they will pull out and stop providing cool stuff.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnRTroy, post: 1516376, member: 2732"] I think the problem those of us who disagree with you see is the following: Legally, the license leans on the side of being open. Publishers choose to use this license because it is helpful for there own products and to be compatible with D&D. Again, you've emphasized that there is nothing we can do about that. However, some of us feel that posting copious amounts of text on-line for free from products is taking advantage of the flawed aspects of the license. We would rather ask the publisher if they would mind. I agree with Monte Cook, it is good form to ask publishers if they'd mind before undergoing these actions. People are free to do what they want, however, I do fear the consequences will be that a 4th Edition D&D will be more closed, and that fewer publishers will participate if people take advantage of this. Time will tell if this great experiement fails or succeeds. In this case, we want to err on the side of caution. The license isn't as important to me as the economic survival of the people who provide such works. I don't think a publisher asking for restraint is a bad thing. "Open Gaming" was, as Ryan himself stated, designed to increase the market share of the hobby. You sort of reveal your "subjective morality" by calling whoever asks for this restraint as a "jerk"--the same thing you got mad at me about--and saying that it's an insult to "open gaming" to ask for a little more restraint. Wow, Open Gaming doesn't have any feelings, it's sort of like that erroneous meme that "Information Wants to be Free"...Information doesn't want for anything, it has no sentience. Somehow, I can't see people like Andy Collins, Chris Pramas, or Monte Cook as jerks for asking people to just use a little restraint. Is there any sort of benefit for the hobby to have rules that people are expected to pay for appear on-line? The marginalization of paid content into free content can't exist without severe consequences to the industry--and the industry is what keeps the hobby alive. If publishers feel themselves being exploited, they will pull out and stop providing cool stuff. [/QUOTE]

Verification