On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Emmett Plant wrote: > Which was exactly my reaction when I read the details on the license. > It's sick. I'm not quite understanding the hullabaloo about the Open Games License. In the regards that people seem upset over, it doesn't seem to bear any technical difference from the GPL. If you use Open Game content and distribute your use of it, the result remains under the OGL. You've taken someone else's Open Game content and used it for yourself; why shouldn't someone else be able to take your Open Game content and use it for himself? This includes, of course, Wizards of the Coast. I don't see the problem and I don't see how this qualifies as, "sick." The terms apply equally to everyone that uses Open Game content, WotC included. Which is why you have access to their content to begin with, why they have access to your content after that, and why, you again, will have access to their modified version of your content in the end. Anyone that regards equal sharing as "sick" has obviously twisted values. -dak -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | | Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/06/01 PST