Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 4030091" data-attributes="member: 2732">Just to be clear, I don't really object to &quot;free content&quot;, &quot;open source&quot;, etc.&nbsp; I use it to, I've used a creative-commons like copyright for a project, etc.&nbsp; I guess my major objection is that I believe it is Wizard's choice to change the style of license, so I think they have their rights to do so, even if people think it might be more restrictive.&nbsp; The OGL is not as &quot;viral&quot; as the GPL or anything like that.&nbsp; Wizards always maintained ownership of the game, etc.While I can understand some who feel that way, I really don't think the existence of the D20/OGL is the most important thing on people's minds.&nbsp; I sort of felt like the OGL was good in the beginning, but I realized that it was specific projects I liked, not how &quot;open&quot; they were.&nbsp; Most people are not authors, they are gamers.&nbsp; I think Wizards has more sales than all the third parties combined.&nbsp; Keep in mind--nobody can restrict you from playing a third-party product.&nbsp; The OGL won't prevent creative GMs from entertaining their own parties.&nbsp; So it won't affect the DMs, it just affects publishers.&nbsp; Keep in mind too the third party license market is not going away.&nbsp; I have a feeling the GSL will not be as restrictive as some think.&nbsp; You may even get to write an adventure featuring beholders, mind flayers, yuan-ti, etc.&nbsp; In fact, I'm hoping they allow various levels of licenses, similar to how the creative commons licenses work.&nbsp; If some want their derivative content to be viral, let them.&nbsp; If some don't, restrict it.&nbsp; If some want to give all their rights to Wizards, let them.&nbsp; This will truly give the authors better control, and I think it's a superior situation than the &quot;one license&quot; the OGL is currently using.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnRTroy, post: 4030091, member: 2732"] Just to be clear, I don't really object to "free content", "open source", etc. I use it to, I've used a creative-commons like copyright for a project, etc. I guess my major objection is that I believe it is Wizard's choice to change the style of license, so I think they have their rights to do so, even if people think it might be more restrictive. The OGL is not as "viral" as the GPL or anything like that. Wizards always maintained ownership of the game, etc. While I can understand some who feel that way, I really don't think the existence of the D20/OGL is the most important thing on people's minds. I sort of felt like the OGL was good in the beginning, but I realized that it was specific projects I liked, not how "open" they were. Most people are not authors, they are gamers. I think Wizards has more sales than all the third parties combined. Keep in mind--nobody can restrict you from playing a third-party product. The OGL won't prevent creative GMs from entertaining their own parties. So it won't affect the DMs, it just affects publishers. Keep in mind too the third party license market is not going away. I have a feeling the GSL will not be as restrictive as some think. You may even get to write an adventure featuring beholders, mind flayers, yuan-ti, etc. In fact, I'm hoping they allow various levels of licenses, similar to how the creative commons licenses work. If some want their derivative content to be viral, let them. If some don't, restrict it. If some want to give all their rights to Wizards, let them. This will truly give the authors better control, and I think it's a superior situation than the "one license" the OGL is currently using. [/QUOTE]

Verification