Problem is that you will have people with the hacker mentality that anything less than 100% open is unacceptable, so clarity of designation isnt necessarily the problem.
Besides, you can see how people disagree on clarity, particularly people who are just fence sitters who like to bitch and moan and who dont actually use the license. Some of them think stuff is unclear or "crippled" (I use that term because it has been used, not because I like it) that to people who actually use the license dont think it is unclear or crippled at all.
Valid point. As with a lot of things, if you take any position but the most-extreme (at either extreme), it is a somewhat-arbirtary position, often without objective support for why your position is valid and one just a little bit to either side of yours is not. [Not to attack your position, just observing that the only positions that don't lead to ambiguities are "all information must be free" and "you own everything you write down", more or less.]
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/
I'm not poor, I just own a very select group of money. Only the crispest bills and clinkiest bits of change are fit to grace my pockets. --Paul Mather _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
