Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 4028314" data-attributes="member: 8461">I agree, but that stance necessitates accepting that, once they see fit to open-source their work, they're voluntarily relinquishing control over it. If they don't like what someone else does later, that isn't the fault of that person making whatever it is that the creator doesn't like. That includes adapting it to mimic or otherwise recreate other works.I don't anticipate most people having a problem with the GSL either, and certainly most of those who do have a problem won't feel that it's enough of one to take any sort of action.However, those who do feel so inclined to take action are within their rights to use the OGL to do so, so long as they violate none of its guidelines. You can't, technically speaking, "make products under 4e as part of the OGL" because 4E itself isn't part of the OGL. You can, however, make products under the OGL that are otherwise compatible with 4E.I don't consider making a profit to be immoral either; I just don't consider it to be necessarily moral either. If morality is in part made up of altruism, then doing something for one's own profit must run, if not against that, then at least not with it.It's up to the individual to decide, but that idea means that you could very well have someone who makes a 4E-like system under the OGL from a moral position.There's already a free D&D, namely the d20 mechanics released under the OGL. The question you've raised is about the morality of altering that to be (more) compatible with 4E D&D, and I think that it's certainly possible.As Lizard pointed out, this is a false analogy. No one is stealing anything from anyone, and no one is intentionally attempting to deny someone else from making money - the latter may happen, but that's a side-effect that occurs whenever there's economic competition.As do I.And I want the people to have that choice. If there's a set of restrictions out there that I disagree with, my interpretation of the Golden Rule is that I would have others selflessly try to remove or bypass them for my sake - likewise, I want to do that for their sake.And I disagree with the idea that only people of "impure intent" would do that. The GSL restrictions mean that a lot of great 3E products will never have the chance to exist in the 4E paradigm, and on behalf of those who would write such works, as well as those who would read and purchase them, I don't like that. Strictly speaking, you can't have a company "run by freelancers," since by definition freelancers aren't employees of a company -  you can have one run by former freelancers.I doubt the bigger companies would published 4E-style OGL materials, since they feel it would be discourteous to WotC. That's certainly a fair point, and I don't begrudge them that. But I feel the current restrictions are discourteous to the fans, so I (and perhaps some smaller companies) would. My interpretation of the Golden Rule is focused on the people who play the games, not the people who make them.And I think most fans of the products would understand this, too.</blockquote>

Verification