> I agree. Read my follow up email. I believe that is > one interpretation of the license. I cant say with > finality that it is the only interpretation. Nor does > it say it is only for one product. In fact, the > license itself speaks in terms of "you" and does not > limit itself by product, making this interpretation > possible. > > Clark
True, there can be more than on interpretation. But I agree with Clark. It's what I call a safety blanket. I don't need lots of money to back up my IP I publish under this license, which means I will be publishing under it eventually. It does give every one of us Non-WotC publisher's an easy solution: turn to 'Big Brother' if another publisher starts abusing our OGC. It means Wizard's is the watchdog for the OGL community. Frankly, that is the way I've seen it from the beginning. Since I'm not the one in violation or the one violated, I felt I shouldn't say anything on this. But since that apparently isn't a requirement on this list (sorry, still learning the rules here) I will say this: Just cause the Netbooks don't make profit, and there aren't market forces to police the license, doesn't mean that the Netbooks or the authors that contributed to them have to accept the abuse, or gather some money to sue. They need only turn to Wizards, and notify them of a breech, and what they have tried. If Wizards feels that the publisher has been given amply time to remedy the situation, and hasn't, then they could pull the plug on that publisher..... Go to Wizards, or sue with your own lawyer. Not being a person with that much spare cash lying around, I'll go to Wizard's first. :) Andrew McDougall a.k.a. Tir Gwaith _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
