On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Faustus von Goethe wrote:
> I >>*believe*<< that Kal's central theme is the one we started with (oh so
> much rhetoric ago) that >philosophically< the OGL should not concern itself
> with strengthening laws which are already adequate.
Yes, I fundamentally believe it is wrong to strengthen the trademark
holders side in every case. That's my original fourth problem.
The new clause does not serve some of us who want to use the OGL.
I also believe in practice something like the Drow example can
and will eventually happen (originally the third problem). The
only criticisms of the example is by someone misinterpreting it
so they can write a rant. At the end of the rant, they justify
it by saying, "You said no evidence. That means in the example
Drow is not public domain." He seems to be aware that my example
could mean "Drow is public domain and many people know it but
solid evidence is hard to come by." Yet, he refuses to interpret
my example in this way, but rather rant about an unfavorable
misinterpretation. At best he is criticizing the presentation,
not the example.
I'm tired of repeatedly clarifying my examples only to have someone
rant about some misinterpretation. This is not an exercise in how
watertight I can present the example. If you are aware of an
interpretation of the example that supports my argument then I have
communicated the example well enough. If you still rant about an
unfavorable misinterpretation then you are just trying to win an
argument by causing confusion. Perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not.
Regards,
--Kal
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
