|
In practice, I would instead simply replace all
references to John with references to Jason and would ignore the fact that John
ever existed because John is PI and I can't use him in my product.
Let's put it a little differently.
Venca is the undead diety of greyhawk. Wizards
releases a book that is OGC with Venca listed as PI so I can't use him in my
product. This same book also has a number of spells in it that are directly
related to our undead god. The names of these spells which are things like
'Venca's Hand of doom' and 'Venca's horrid vomit' are also listed as
PI.
The question is: Do I _KNOW_ that the spells which
are in a completely different chapter from the Diety Venca are in fact related
to the diety? Or for my purposes are they just nameless spells and nameless
dieties?
And no, this is not just theoretical talk before
someone chimes in. I have a real world similar example where I felt weird about
claiming that a certain set of rules went with a certain name even though I was
going to change the name.
Umm, I'd recommend using plain English instead of pseudo-code to describe the PI. Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l |
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
