Re: Troberg, meet Google. Google, say Hi to Troberg
Klickar du på den, hittar du en lista på några öppna licenser.
Och om man tittar på den listan så ser man att det är:
* OGL som egentligen inte uppfyller kraven på en öppen licens
* Två små och relativt okända licenser för rollspel
* Två licenser som inte skapades för rollspel och bara blivit medlagda
Så, varför så nedlåtande för att jag inte tyckte att det var något att komma med?
Du kan också gå till en webbsida som heter Wikipedia, den är också bra tycker jag. Sök efter "Open Gaming".
Japp, och där finner man följande guldklimp:
"However, the OGL was criticised (primarily by amateur role-playing game authors[citation needed]) for being insufficiently "open", and for being controlled by the market leader Wizards of the Coast (see d20 System for more information). In response to this, and in an attempt to shift support away from the OGL and toward more open licenses, several alternatives to the OGL were suggested and drafted. Similarly, the popularity of the OGL inspired others to create their own, specific open content licenses. Virtually none of these gained acceptance beyond the works of the licenses' own authors, and many have since been abandoned."
Vilket är ungefär vad jag sagt.
Om man dessutom följer lite länkar på den sidan så hittar man ännu mer skoj:
"Criticism of the d20 System Trademark License
Unlike the OGL, the d20 System Trademark License (D20STL) is revocable and is controlled by WotC. For critics this raises questions over the control that Wizards can exert over the open gaming movement, which is widely considered to be synonymous with the d20 System[citation needed]. WotC has the ability to alter the d20 System Trademark License at will and gives a short, 30 day "cure period" to rectify any issues with the license before termination. These changes apply retroactively to all material published under the d20 System Trademark License.
When gaming company The Valar Project, under former WotC brand manager Anthony Valtera, attempted to publish the d20 Book of Erotic Fantasy (BoEF), which contained Human sexuality, WotC altered the d20 System Trademark License in advance of publication of BoEF by adding a "quality standards" provision that required publishers comply with "community standards of decency." This subsequently prevented the book's publication under the D20STL [1]. WotC said this was done to protect its d20 System trademark, but critics claimed that it was censorship. The Book of Erotic Fantasy was subsequently published without the d20 System trademark under the OGL. Other books subsequently published under similar circumstances include Skirmisher Publishing LLC's Nuisances which also includes on its cover the disclaimer "Warning: Intended For Mature Readers Only."
The same round of changes to the license also limited the size at which the text "Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast" (which is required to appear on the front or back cover of most fantasy d20 System products) could be printed, and prohibited making part of it larger than the rest. This was perceived as being aimed at the same Valar book; early mockups of the cover had the words "Dungeons & Dragons" in the above text printed much larger and in a different font from the rest, right at the top of the front cover. This could have made the book appear to be an official Dungeons & Dragons publication to a casual or uninformed observer. The published version does not have the offending text on the cover.
Criticism is also levied at the conditions for termination of the d20 System Trademark License through a breach of its terms. The license requires that, upon breach of the terms of the D20STL which includes any subsequent modifications of the license after publication of a work using the d20 System trademark, all inventory and marketing material must be destroyed. Adhering to the breach conditions is an onerous task for smaller game companies. The mere threat of this condition being imposed was a huge blow to the now defunct d20 System publisher Fast Forward Entertainment, which had released several books that used non-open WotC content due to company president James Ward's misunderstanding of the license.
Other criticism is based around the part of the d20 System Trademark License which defines "Open Game Content" to include game mechanics and purports to license it. It is widely believed that game mechanics are uncopyrightable in the USA, and according to a circular on the US Copyright Office's website [2], "Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles."
One result of this has been the abandonment of the d20 System License by some publishers in favor of a simple "OGL" designation. Mongoose Publishing's licensed games based on the Conan the Barbarian property and the Robert A. Heinlein novel Starship Troopers, for example, use systems that function nearly identically to d20 but do not carry the d20 logo.
At least one company, Technomancer Press, has begun publishing d20 System-compatible material, but not under the d20 System License or OGL. Their use of the Dungeons and Dragons trademark and d20 System material is explicitly forbidden by the Open Gaming License, and this is deliberate (as is stated on their web site)."
och
"The OGL has been criticised by various individual gamers and gamer groups who dissent from the so-called corporate, 'WotC-inspired' open gaming movement, on the grounds that WotC's dominant position in the RPG market is negative and that the OGL would contribute to this negativity by expanding WotC's influence in the market.
Initial criticism was not actually against the OGL, but against the d20 license which permits non-trademark holders to use the d20 trademark. Many often confuse the d20 License with the OGL even though they are two separate legal documents. See d20 System for more information on criticism of the d20 license.
Criticisms of the OGL itself tend to focus on three issues: the definition of Product Identity, the ability to mix Open Gaming Content, or OGC, and non-OGC or closed content, and the lack of a "source" requirement.
The issue of Product Identity, or PI, is probably the most hotly contested. Critics consider PI, as it is defined in the OGL, to onerously and unfairly increase the legal ground covered by traditional intellectual property laws, such as trademarks and copyright. Since it is possible in reality, although against the terms of the Open Gaming Licence itself, that OGC and PI can be combined without making clear distinction between the two, they also contend that by mixing the two without clearly distinguishing them one can prevent downstream licensees from re-using OGC.
Similarly, by mixing open and closed content without clearly distinguishing the two they contend that upstream users can similarly prevent re-use of OGC, thereby eliminating the point of having OGC in the first place. While the OGL does make provision that PI and OGC must be clearly indicated, it gives no specific mechanism by which this may be done and critics consider the terms of the OGL to be vague on how well they may be distinguished. They cite as example the practice common to many d20 and OGL publishers of simply indicating which parts of a work are OGC by simply stating "all rules are Open Gaming Content, the rest is closed" or something similar. These leaves considerable confusion as to which portions of a work are OGC and which are not, which critics often claim is a ploy to prevent re-use of OGC.
The OGL itself is often publicised as a strong copyleft license. However, the ability to mix open and closed content brings into question whether or not it can be considered a strong copyleft license, or whether it can be considered a copyleft license at all.
Finally, criticism is levelled at the lack of a "source" requirement within the OGL - that is, a requirement that the source files used to compose the document into the format it is published be distributed with the document. Such a requirement would, for example, prevent the distribution of open content in encrypted PDF content which would make it non-trivial and even illegal to extract open content from for the purposes of re-use.[2] Such a strategy digresses however with WotC's formal opinion about the purpose of the OGL, that is to allow third-party publishers to produce commercially viable products in order to support its own products.
Various suggestions have been made for alternative licenses by critics, including the GNU Free Documentation License, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license and even the GNU General Public License, as well as other open content and free content licenses. See open gaming for more information."
Knappast sådant som ska hända under en öppen licens.
Lycka till med din research! Det blir roligare om man gör den själv, och då kan man ju också använda Google till att söka annan information också, som kompletterar det andra. Man ska ju som alla vet vara väldigt försiktig med att lita på information man hittar på nätet.
Fast jag frågade vilka licenser DU syftade på, vilket inte fanns på nätet förrän du skrev det här inlägget.
