Using, misusing, and releasing OGC

[CRGreathouse]

Ah. Does that mean you have no products, then?

No. It means I have no reason to tell you about them.

And since they aren't germaine to this discussion, I would hazard a guess that they are being used (subconsciously of course) as proof that I lack the requisite "equipment" to gain entry to the clique of "established" publishers that seems to feel threatened by use of the OGL in its true, unadulterated form.

You're attacking Morrus? Founder of this site? The only reason anyone's heard of Nemesis Press? A darn nice guy, overworked and underpaid?

Nah- make it four now.

Five.

 

[enrious]

Attacking Morrus, Clark, and in a way Monte?

Six.

 

[EricNoah]

That's right, everyone back away slowly from the nice man. Slowly ... slowly...

Seriously, I wouldn't worry about this guy. If he was really smart and going to republish volumes of other people's stuff, he wouldn't be in here blathering on about it and getting on our radar. He'd stay as far away from here as possible so we wouldn't know what he was up to. The guy sounds like a blowhard to me. And like one of those people who think writing computer viruses helps the computer industry, or pirating software helps the software industry.

Hey, Russ, should we get Dancey in here?

 

[Grazzt]

And like one of those people who think writing computer viruses helps the computer industry, or pirating software helps the software industry.

Didn't you know that Symantec (Norton), McAfee, Panda, and all the other AV companies keep peeps on their payroll to design and distribute new virii?

Hey, Russ, should we get Dancey in here?

Could be fun, but he might be the next "victim" in a line of attacks.

 

[NemesisPress]

Well, if there were such an organisation, I'd rather it weren't run by someone who needed to ask "How much OGC is necessary to use in your works?"

A quick look at my posts will show that I have asked that question in a slightly different way. To paraphrase: "How much OGC (both the incorporated work of others and new original contribution) is necessary to use in your works from a marketing standpoint?" Even Orcus responded to that version.

You are wrong about your perception of the reasons for the existence of the OGL...The reasons for its creation have been explained many times by its creator (that'll be Ryan Dancey).

It's been repeated by Clark Peterson who was around through that process. Even Monte Cook has chimed in. You remember who he is?

You came here and asked people their opinion, and when qualified people gave it you stood up and said "You Are Wrong!"
[/B]

You're both wrong (and probably feel threatened) by unrestricted use of the OGL. While WoTC allowed the creation of the OGL for those very reasons you mention, its ramifications are much wider. (And I remember who Monte is; I just don't worship him.)

And I haven't attacked anyone personally - only their positions- though I have tried to explain what I see as the ideological underpinnings of those positions. It's the respondents that seem threatened by these arguments. Maybe you should take some time to re-examine the assumptions your stance is based on.

I didn't mention "asking permission" because you don't ask permission. Looking back over the thread, I'm not quite sure if anybody has even taken the position that "asking permission" is required.

Actually, I started this thread specifically to explore some ideas that were raised in another thread about the OGL. In that thread Morrus stated that he believed you have to ask permission (even though, of course, that invalidates the entire point of the license). He seemed to back off that here for a time. Orcus jumped on the bandwagon and added comments about "collegiality." However, his argument comes down to "use the OGL the way I say you should - not the way it is written."

It appears that those threatened by the OGL (some of whom, like Orcus, think of the d20 market and OGL as just speed bumps on their path to success) have chosen to rationalize the OGL in certain ways - and now attempt to restrict its use by informal methods.

If he was really smart and going to republish volumes of other people's stuff...

OGC is not "other people's stuff." (And I don't know that I am "really smart," but it's certainly beginning to look that way - at least in relative terms.)

 

[Orcus]

Orcus jumped on the bandwagon and added comments about "collegiality." However, his argument comes down to "use the OGL the way I say you should - not the way it is written."

It appears that those threatened by the OGL (some of whom, like Orcus, think of the d20 market and OGL as just speed bumps on their path to success) have chosen to rationalize the OGL in certain ways - and now attempt to restrict its use by informal methods.

I am getting real tired of having this idiot mischaracterize my position.

1. I am not threatened by unrestricted us of OGC. I simply believe their should be congeniality. That does not mean I am threatened by a lack of it. I understand what the license allows and I am not threatened by it. I just call upon people to use the powers you are given with decency and politeness. You seem to like to go to the "feel threatened" comment quite a bit. I guess this plays into your self-percieved role as "openness crusader" or whatever delusion you have.

2. I have never said use the UGL my way. In fact I am a huge supporter of the OGL and if you had any perspective on this history of the movement you would know I have been right there in the front advancing the concept. My whole point is that you cant divorce the ethical element from an action. It is not correct to say "I have the power to do something, therefor it is always OK for me to do it." That is a simple ethical principle.

3. I have never viewed the d20 market and the OGL as a speed bump on the road to success. That is just insane. I have simply made the point that many people use the licenses because they have to. That is just fact.

4. I have never sought to restrict OGC. For goodness sake I wrote the checklists to help people understand the license and use open content. In fact, in our upcoming Tome of Horrors I even give step by step instructions and examples on how to reuse the content in the book.

Please refrain from mischaracterizing my comments in the future.

As for your position, I hate to break it to you but no one is threatened by you or by the position you spout (and which hundreds before you have spouted). I know it probably disappoints you that no one considers you the "revolutionary crusader" that you obviously consider yourself to be. You arent saying anything new. You are just doing it more rudely than most.

Why you would be here saying these things to your peers as you get ready to embark on a publishing business I will never know. But hey, you cant keep people from being stupid.

Clark

 

[CRGreathouse]

Didn't you know that Symantec (Norton), McAfee, Panda, and all the other AV companies keep peeps on their payroll to design and distribute new virii?

Viruses, not virii.

 

[Orcus]

And I don't know that I am "really smart," but it's certainly beginning to look that way - at least in relative terms.

You have got to be kidding me.

Here's an idea: put your money where your mouth is. Since you already said you could be successful as you have identified four areas of need, why dont you go do it. Then we will see. Who knows, maybe you are the undiscovered genius. But my prediction is that it doesnt quite work out that way.

Right now you just are all talk, no action. And not even very good talk at that.

Clark

 

[Grazzt]

Viruses, not virii.

Actually among some of the secret hacker communities more than one virus is still referred to as "virii".

For example:

http://membres.lycos.fr/asle/virii.2.html

 

[Grazzt]

But hey, you cant keep people from being stupid.

Clark

Good point Clark. And apparently some people are REALLY good at it.