On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 08:42:47 -0500, woodelf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, personally, i'm about ready to give up on these discussions. The license is broken, perhaps fatally.
If the license were broken, it wouldn't be used. It is used; ergo, it not only isn't broken, but it doesn't even really need to be fixed.
Could it be clearer? Yes. Are there a few issues that would be nice to add? Yes (Namely, explicity being allowed to note where OGC comes from.)
I have a hypothetical license. It has two clauses, one of which says "The undersigned agree to abide by the terms of this contract, so long as both parties are US citizens." and another of which says "This license may not be altered." Two people who are not both US citizens decide to use the license, acknowledging that it technically is not valid, but both agreeing to abide by the terms of the license--but without any additional provisions being formally added, because that is explicitly forbidden. Should it go to court, it would, by the very letter of teh license, be deemed unworkable. Yet the two people are clearly using the license. I realize this is a fairly contrived example, but what i'm trying to point out is that simply using the license does not eliminate the possibility of it being fatally flawed. If everybody agrees (explicitly or implicitly) to just work around the broken bits, or turn a blind eye to them, or whatever, it might simultaneously be legally broken, and perfectly useable--because some formal part of the legal license is being sidestepped through other-than-legal means.
I contend that that is where we are at with teh WotC OGL: several of the provisions are sufficiently problematic that (1) we cannot come to one accepted interpretation and/or (2) while those on this list can, that interpretation doesn't make sense in light of how WotC has used the license. And then there are the areas that may or may not be broken (how PI behaves, and whose PI you are beholden to) that everybody has simply agreed to an interpretation on (avoid all PI you are aware of, rather than push the issue).
Or, to put it another way: would you prefer to sign a lease that says "Rent is due on the 1st of the month" with a landlord who says "don't worry--i won't actually come pounding on your door so long as i get it by the 5th", or sign a lease that says "Rent is due no later than the 5th of the month"?
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/
If we can just hit this bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. . . Checkmate! --Zap Brannigan _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
