Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1516545" data-attributes="member: 6398">How compatible is M&amp;M?&nbsp; How about T20?&nbsp; Judge Dread?&nbsp;You have a narrow view of the license's proven potential.&nbsp;Actually, what's flawed is the lack of fore-sight to build in a mandatory OGL depository.&nbsp;Of course, the issue at-hand isn't the reproduction of OGC in SRD format (or better) on the web, it's the Distribution of previously released OGC in any form.&nbsp; It could be the day after release, a month after release, or a year after release.&nbsp; And it could be of any amount.&nbsp;And, again, I ask, if they &quot;mind&quot;, does this mean that we can't Distribute the OGC?&nbsp; If not, what if we do anyways?&nbsp; Does their private or public statement requesting we not do so in any way invalidate or nullify the material as OGC, or restrict my ability to use it?&nbsp;And that's my problem with it; it's empty, inconsequential, and completely defeats the purpose of Open Gaming by circumventing the &quot;open&quot; part of the deal.&nbsp;If we tip-toe around it now, why would we stop tip-toeing around it 5, 10 or 15 years from now?&nbsp; WotC is already under no obligation to release anything as OGC.&nbsp; They wouldn't have to worry about this mythical closed-4E; they could completely turn their backs on it now without making any major changes to the system.&nbsp; About the most we should expect is more revisions to tighten their fist around the d20STL.&nbsp;Define &quot;Restraint&quot;?&nbsp;Would &quot;restraint&quot; qualify as a no for any of the following:&nbsp;1. This new spell in your new book is kewl.&nbsp; Can I give it to an NPC in my new book?&nbsp;2. This new Prestige Class in your new book is kewl.&nbsp; Can I use it for an organization in my new book?&nbsp;3. This new method of magic in your new book is kewl.&nbsp; Can I use it as a villain-base in my new book?&nbsp;4. This book of warfare is kewl.&nbsp; Can I use it as the warfare system in my new book?&nbsp;If any of these answers comes back as a &quot;no&quot;, the purpose of the license has been subverted.&nbsp;Again, define &quot;restraint&quot;?&nbsp; If &quot;restraint&quot; entails limiting the use of the license, then it's more than &quot;restraint&quot;.&nbsp; If restraint means getting the nod to use something already legally made usable by the origanal creator's consent to use it, then it's more than &quot;restraint&quot;.&nbsp;Tell me that you would send an email to a Contributor announcing your Use of their OGC, then I'd see no problem with it.&nbsp; But to ask for permission is silly.&nbsp;And none of them to date are on record saying &quot;no&quot;.&nbsp; If anyone reading this thread has been told &quot;no&quot; by any of these people, or any others in fact, than feel free to say so.&nbsp;What I have seen is CP asking a poster not to do it and the poster accepting the reasons given.&nbsp; Okay.&nbsp;What I have also seen is AC calling the idea of OGC extraction and the people that do it &quot;petty&quot;, followed up by a rather misleading and misdirected comparison of OGC extraction to literary piracy.&nbsp; Not so okay, but who cares?&nbsp;But no one has ever said &quot;no&quot; that I know of, and I've yet to ever get an email asking me to stop (that is, I cannot be &quot;told&quot; to stop).&nbsp;Who defines those rules?&nbsp; I think OGC should be made available by the publisher after a certain amount of time.&nbsp; However, it's not part of the license.&nbsp; And since it's not in the license, it's up to me when I choose to do it, where, and how.&nbsp;Again, though, this goes back to my opinion that the most of the industry has built itself up on a standard business model that does not take Open Gaming into account.&nbsp; That is not my fault; It's theirs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bendris Noulg, post: 1516545, member: 6398"] How compatible is M&M? How about T20? Judge Dread? You have a narrow view of the license's proven potential. Actually, what's flawed is the lack of fore-sight to build in a mandatory OGL depository. Of course, the issue at-hand isn't the reproduction of OGC in SRD format (or better) on the web, it's the Distribution of previously released OGC in [i]any [/i]form. It could be the day after release, a month after release, or a year after release. And it could be of any amount. And, again, I ask, if they "mind", does this mean that we [i]can't[/i] Distribute the OGC? If not, what if we do anyways? Does their private or public statement requesting we not do so in any way invalidate or nullify the material as OGC, or restrict my ability to use it? And that's my problem with it; it's empty, inconsequential, and completely defeats the purpose of Open Gaming by circumventing the "open" part of the deal. If we tip-toe around it now, why would we stop tip-toeing around it 5, 10 or 15 years from now? WotC is already under [i]no[/i] obligation to release [i]anything[/i] as OGC. They wouldn't have to worry about this mythical closed-4E; they could completely turn their backs on it now without making any major changes to the system. About the most we [i]should[/i] expect is more revisions to tighten their fist around the d20STL. Define "Restraint"? Would "restraint" qualify as a no for any of the following: 1. This new spell in your new book is kewl. Can I give it to an NPC in my new book? 2. This new Prestige Class in your new book is kewl. Can I use it for an organization in my new book? 3. This new method of magic in your new book is kewl. Can I use it as a villain-base in my new book? 4. This book of warfare is kewl. Can I use it as the warfare system in my new book? If [i]any[/i] of these answers comes back as a "no", the purpose of the license has been subverted. Again, define "restraint"? If "restraint" entails limiting the use of the license, then it's more than "restraint". If restraint means getting the nod to use something already legally made usable [i]by the origanal creator's consent[/i] to use it, then it's more than "restraint". Tell me that you would send an email to a Contributor [i]announcing[/i] your Use of their OGC, then I'd see no problem with it. But to ask for permission is silly. And none of them to date are on record saying "no". If anyone reading this thread has been told "no" by any of these people, or any others in fact, than feel free to say so. What I have seen is CP asking a poster not to do it and the poster accepting the reasons given. Okay. What I have also seen is AC calling the idea of OGC extraction and the people that do it "petty", followed up by a rather misleading and misdirected comparison of OGC extraction to literary piracy. Not so okay, but who cares? But no one has ever said "no" that I know of, and I've yet to ever get an email asking me to stop (that is, I cannot be "told" to stop). Who defines those rules? I think OGC should be made available by the publisher after a certain amount of time. However, it's not part of the license. And since it's not in the license, it's up to [i]me[/i] when I choose to do it, where, and how. Again, though, this goes back to my opinion that the most of the industry has built itself up on a standard business model that [i]does not[/i] take Open Gaming into account. That is not my fault; It's theirs. [/QUOTE]

Verification