Re: [Ogf-l] Section 1 Definitions

[DarkTouch]

I think that I've gotten to the point where I feel that if someone doesn't have a concrete question then it really isn't "Interesting, useful, or insightful". More often these calls for improving the license or coming up with a brilliant new FAQ or whatever are based entirely on theoretical debates that mean absolutely nothing to me.   It is infinitely more useful to me to see someone say "I want to create a game that does X,Y, or Z but I'm not sure how the license would allow for it because of Section A, sentence B." It is a concrete example of an issue with the license that I can help with or learn from. If you're actually publishing or looking to publish then this makes sense. If you're an armchair lawyer looking for nits to pick then you're wasting my time.   In a message dated 6/1/2004 10:57:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Heck, if people on the list raise interesting, useful, or insightful questions then I care much more about that then whether or not they are currently publishing. I have seen such bad OGC/PI declarations (or non-existent ones) in professionally published products that I have learned to separate somebody's insight into the license from their publishing record. Theoretically, I could imagine an IP lawyer working for a big game company probably has a lot of insights re: the language of the OGL even if he never writes a single module, character description, or spell in his life.  Comprehension and publications are not the same things. Lee

_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l