>> >> somewhat unclear -- it seems to me that the only way >> >> anyone would know what you consider to be OGC or not >> >> would be to contact you directly. >> >> Which you are more than welcome to do. >>
I think this is the point of contention for some, including myself, although it may not be shared amongst all OGC re-users. Although it is true, if I see one feat that I "just have to have" in my book. I could pull the text, email you. But if I'm doing general development, and I'm "thinking about using" this or that, while browsing through a dozen or more source books, I don't want to have to keep sending little "nit'picky" little messasages, "hey is this OGC, or how about that, or this other thing" -- you know each in it's own little message. It's inconvieneant to have to break the workflow to go kick you an email, and then have to wait for the reply. Some of us feel that the it should be "clear" what is and is not OGC without having to contact you, because, well, the license calls for "clear indication." And although pure rules are easy to pick out as OGC, by experienced writers, you still have two problems: 1. Identifying rules that are not derivitive. Some publishers have/are producing what they consider entirely new rules that are not derivitive, and are PIing them. 2. Knowing how much of the descriptive text is dirivitive, and thus OGC, and how much of it is being claimed as PI. -- Mike C. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
