--- Justin Bacon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And where, exactly, does it do that? It states that "you must clearly > indicate which portions of the work [...] are Open Game Content", but at no > time does it state that this indication must be done in a "positive sense". > > If I say, "I own everything in this room which is not black." I have clearly > indicated what belongs me. > > Similarly, if I say: "Everything in this book except Chapter 2 is OGC." I > have clearly indicated what the OGC in my product is. > > Justin Bacon > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just simply cannot understand why this keeps going around and around. You even quoted the license. It says "you must clearly indicate which portions [...] **ARE** Open Game Content". [emphasis mine] What is cyptic or flexible about that? State what *IS* OGC, or you violate the letter of the license, even if you do not violate the spirit of the license. So your first statement can be adapted to say "everthing in this book that is black is OGC". Your second example "Everything is except ch2" does state what *is*. The statements wind up being much more clear and usable that way. If I say "everything that is not black, green, blue, olive or hazel is OGC", that can wind up being a mess. It even may be clear in this simplistic example, but in a book that involves potentially dozens of OGC sources, PI, trademarked material, arbitrarily non-OGL material, etc., a negative statement can easily wind up being ambiguous. And it's not like it's hard to reword the ambiguous statement into a positive, unambiguous statement... -Mike __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
