You reap what you sow - GSL.

[I'm A Banana]

He failed to express even mild regret that his own material wouldn't qualify and in fact, didn't extract anything from any commercial work he had ever done to demonstrate that he'd practice what he preached.

Let's see if I can't simplify the counter-argument.

No one cares that he failed to express regret because it wasn't his decision, it was the decision of the people he worked for. It would be their place to express regret, not his. So there's no real hypocrisy here.

I would not express regret if my employer burned down someone's house. It's not my place. I don't always agree with the actions of those who sign my paychecks. Fortunately, I don't have to, because I'm not responsible for their actions, just my own. If I say burning down buildings is bad, working for a company who burnt down a building doesn't mean that I support them in that (though I may support them in other ways or think that they're useful or whatnot).

 

[Mark]

I would not express regret if my employer burned down someone's house. It's not my place.

But you could.

 

[mearls]

I'm sure you didn't. But you sure didn't raise the same kind of stink about your own stuff as you did about, say, everyone else's.

The idea of the OGC wiki was the direct result of my experiences with IH. Go back and read the original post. If that's not enough, then, whatever.

Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in living up to whatever standards of purity you've decided to erect for me.

 

[Psion]

No, not really. There's a big difference between legal license and being considerate. It's takes an empty or ill-defined ethical compass to equate them exactly.

I'll give to an example. I box. I've signed an injury waiver. If I get hit hard, I'm not allowed to take legal action. I have agreed that I'm okay with being punched in the face.

If someone who was obviously a better boxer at the gym (and there are a lot of them) beat the living crap out of me, it would have to be pretty severe for it to be actionable. But the guy would still be a jerk.

Don't be a jerk.

Cute analogy. Where we obviously differ is in the amount of "jerkiness" is happening here. And differences is perception of ethics between people is why we have legal agreements.

But it comes down to this: The OGL gives you tools to selectively disclose material as OGC or protect it as PI. If you fail to use that, I don't have too much sympathy for you.

Getting back at your boxing example from another angle, if I give you pads and a mouthguard and you are hurting and lose a few teeth after a bout because you failed to use them, I'm not going to have too much sympathy for you.

 

[Fifth Element]

This statement makes the false assumption that I had any hand whatsoever in that declaration.

Thank you, Mike, for coming here and clarifying what many of us thought was fairly obvious, but was being overlooked by some.

 

[Fifth Element]

Eyebeams has been booted from the thread. I think we can stop responding to his "arguments" now.

 

[Mark]

You reap what you sow - GSL.

The GSL is not a harvest, but rather a salting of the fields.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The GSL is not a harvest, but rather a salting of the fields.

Indeed.

 

[Particle_Man]

The idea of the OGC wiki was the direct result of my experiences with IH. Go back and read the original post. If that's not enough, then, whatever.

Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in living up to whatever standards of purity you've decided to erect for me.

By the way Mike, I just wanted to personally thank you for Iron Heroes.

And Holgar of the Lakeshore Mountains, Master of the Maul, thanks you too!

 

[pemerton]

My reading of the OGL is "You may use this material if you abide by these terms; if you use this material without abiding by these terms, you may be liable." Not sure how that fails to apply to fansites.

The OGL is a contractual licence. It confers neither rights nor obligations on those who are not a party to it. Likewise for the GSL.

EN World doesn't link to the OGL? I thought that it did. Certainly, WotC could demand that it did under the OGL.

Likewise, WotC could demand that either EN World have 4e content, or OGL content, but not both, under the GSL.

WoTC cannot demand anything of ENworld under either licence if ENworld is not a party to either licence.

Furthermore, the GSL is an actual legal document. The fan site policy is....what? Goodwill? Can you point to it? Can you refer to it? Does it have any validity in a court of law?

I'm not sure what you mean by "validity in a court of law" here - the policy is not a contract (unlike the GSL or OGL). However, depending on the details of the policy, and the details of anyone's conduct in response to the policy, WoTC might be estopped from denying that certain behaviours were licensed.

If I were to create a free OGL version of 4e, and place it on a fan site, what do you think WotC's reaction would be?

I imagine that WoTC would attempt to enforce its rights under copyright and trademark law. How far, exactly, those rights extend (particularly in relation to those who are not using the trademarks in pursuit of trade themselves, and who are not publishing any copyrighted text for their own prfoit) is a tricky matter.