On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Fred wrote: > > But maybe I'm naive: I just really, really haven't seen any signs > > of someone really wanting to "cripple" their OGC and prevent > > reuse. I see some practices that some people describe as > > crippling. I see some people theorize (in a way that sometimes > > verges on paranoid conspiracy theorizing) that some of these > > practices are deliberate attempts to cripple their OGC. > > Let's take, for example, the declaration by Malhavoc that the term "Gold" is > PI, when using their OGC for weapons made of gold. Aside from > making reuse of the OGC somewhat more difficult, what possible > purpose is there in making this term PI?
It's always possible that Monte's PI declaration is clumsy, not malicious. Still, when I expressed a view last year here that vague OGC statements are caused by people failing to understand the license, I was told by list members who claimed priviledged information that there were cases of people who understood full well what they were doing when they made their OGC statements vague, incomplete, or just plain wrong. I don't know if those claims are true or not, but if they are, then yes there have been cases of deliberate crippling of OGC one way or another in order to further some goal (most likely making reuse more unlikely). Spike Y Jones _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
