On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Faustus von Goethe wrote:
> My statement (exasperated query) was made to the list. That's why I said
> "Where ... did anyone ..." instead "Where ... did you ..." I know YOU
> didn't say this.
Ok, but the question becomes: Where did you get the idea that anyone
accused you of what you claim people are mistakenly accusing you of?
When you respond to my post and raise the question of "Where did anyone"
get an idea that is clearly not in my post, and which I haven't even seen
in any other posts, it certainly implies that you think I've expressed the
idea. If you saw such an opinion expressed in another post, you should
have responded to that post or at least cut & pasted the reference into
your message to the list.
Basically, you've claimed that you intend to compile a database of OGC
content. Something that is perfectly permitted under the OGL. You've
also stated that it is in the interests of publishers of products that
have mixed OGC and other content that you accurately represent their OGC
content. Some of those publishers on the list have pointed out that, no
it is not in their interest that you or anyone else even create such a
database. I don't believe any have stated that you can't do it; they've
just tried to point out why doing such a database may lead to
professionals not producing anything under the OGL or at least not
developing new OGC. You've claimed that since the OGL permits such a
database, said publishers are out of luck and they should attempt to make
sure that a good database like yours (or perhaps John's?) is accurate by
providing a pure OGC document of their mixed products to avoid mistakes.
This last claim simply lacks logical support. It is in the interest of
the compilers of OGC to ensure the compilation is both accurate as to the
OGC it includes and useful to the customer/user, since if the compiler
fails on either of these, the philosophy behind the "open" movement is
that the compilation project will fail in the marketplace. The original
creator/publisher of the OGC is at best indifferent to how their material
is used by a compiler. As others have pointed out they may actually
actively oppose such efforts even though they are permited under the OGL.
Your examples of "bad" databases being developed or the fact that WotC is
publishing the SRD simply aren't on point. The first because nothing
you've proposed does anything to prevent "bad" databases. The second
because WotC's intent with the OGL at this point is entirely different
from every other publisher which follows after them using the SRD.
alec
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
