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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 4034398" data-attributes="member: 2732">Actually, I started another thread in the 4e section suspected that Wizards might actually have a patent or two planned for 4e.  We will see.They may not have rights under the law, but most professional developers have a common courteously to respect that.  You've finally admitted your motivation--your pissed that they decided the OGL is not a good license for them and want revenge.  You also haven't seen the 4e rules, so you can't really say how "derivative" they are.  And, like I explained in yet another thread, the OGL was a license of their own property, they never gave up their rights to that.  The US--computer programming.  I don't own my work or want to.  I've done creative things for gratis.Nope.  I have not argued against the public domain or openly accessible works.  What I have argued about is that it is up to the author themselves to decide how it should be accessed, not "the people".  I tend to be different than most of my peers because I tend to follow authors over properties.  I followed Gygax to his latest games, I follow the writers of comic books rather than the characters, etc.  I have a good empathy towards them, and I want to see them get compensated.  I defend the right to companies to have that as well since if we abolish the rules for companies we'd abolish the rules for individuals.What my intent to say was, most people who are playing D&D are not trying to enter the publishing side of things, be it "for free" or "for pay".  The lack of an OGL license never stopped them from doing this before.  And I also expressed that statement because most people just want to play the game.  They don't seek to get published and seek financial renumeration.Basically, my point was I think very few of the fans care how "open" it is.  They care if they like the game.  So I think whether or not the OGL is used for the 4e rules will matter little to the rank and file who play the game.  It obviously matters to you, but similar to the fact that most people seem to plan to go to 4e, I'd be very surprised if the difference in licensing terms will make all that difference.I never fought against open source.  What I fight for is the right for anybody, be it sole individual or multinational corporation, the right to set the terms how they release their creations.  I have nothing against open source.  I dislike the people who say everybody should be forced to release it that way, we need to abolish copyright, etc.  Wizards, despite being the "800lb gorilla", has the right to set their terms and decide their future products won't be OGL compatible, and I support the same way I support the individual authors have that same control.People assume it's the "big corporation" that evil.  Somebody brought up Microsoft earlier.  Well, Microsoft got successful not from "stealing ideas", but because they worked hard and a lot of the other guys they competed with had many issues--dBase, WordStar, Borland, IBM, Novell, etc., all did some very stupid things that killed them.  (For a good read, look for "In Search of Stupidity, 2nd Edition"--and yes, the book is critical of Microsoft when deserved).  And now I see Google getting the same hatred. People forget these monopolies are not caused by mergers or acquisitions, they're caused because the people made their choice and the companies produced good product.  I'm a bit critical of the OGL because I believe Wizards gave up a little too much control.  I personally would not have done this with a game I created it, for various reasons.  I see what's happening with 3e and 4e as similar to if a video game publisher released a first trilogy of games under the GPL, then decided they would build a whole new engine and use a more restrictive license.  It's their right to do so.  I agree, labels can be restrictive.  But also keep in mind for every success there are a few dozen failures, and the labels eat that cost.  Basically, my argument is that is your choice.  Others choose to be part of labels.  I'm against saying people shouldn't get paid or royalties for music.  Cool!  I am not hostile to people who choose third edition.  You still respect that WoTC is the controller of D&D.  If enough people think like you that will send a message, and you have the moral high ground.</blockquote>

Verification