Mike Kletch wrote:
I just simply cannot understand why this keeps going around and around. YouIt keeps going 'round and 'round because you're reading the license incorrectly. Placing an artificial and unsupportable emphasis and meaning upon the word "are" does not back up your point.
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.
If I say "everything that is not black, green, blue, olive or hazel is OGC",You're hoisting yourself on your own petard here. Clearly a designation of "everything except the black" is clearer than a designation of "everything which is white, pink, mauve, red, orange, purple, chautreuse, violet, blue, and green".
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.
Justin Bacon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
