Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9038544" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, except, as I read it, OGL is SUPPOSED to exclude mechanics from being PI, just like ORC does. It is merely a quirk of the way it is worded which (arguably, though I think its a weak argument myself) allows people to get away with using it in what you are claiming is the 'industry standard' way. My guess is 90% of the people reading the license think it works the way it was meant to. So, by utilizing a different interpretation IMHO you are not acting in good faith. Think of it this way, I license you my mechanics by implication as the OGL seems to envision. You then add some additional mechanics to my core game engine and designate your OGC. That is NOT good faith! Its you building off my work and not sharing yours back, which was exactly the benefit I anticipated from using an open license in the first place! And philosophically, how is it that copyleft can function if you can simply derive stuff from other people's work and call it not part of the community contribution? MY contribution is now having lesser value because your work, which fundamentally depends on it, has attracted those eyeballs, and I'm left with no way to do the corresponding thing, again as I intended to be able to do by using the OGL!I get that there are permissive licenses, but people KNOW they are using them when they use them. Their use cases are also quite different from open licenses. Bending one so it looks like the other and then claiming the cover that you are just doing what other people do with a completely different license regime doesn't seem honest to me. I really haven't followed the whole ORC debate much, so I'm not hostile to the possibility that there's some sort of third way to argue this, but on the face of it, the whole thing doesn't wash.</blockquote>

Verification