--- Matthew Sprange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > what you do not. However, my psychocom provided terminated my direct > > connection to your brainwaves because of my 'poor attitude'. Now I can > only > > I have never accused anyone here of having a bad attitude - and believe me, > I may have had cause to.
You never did say that, but others have in the past, and I was preempting them... > Now, I came to this list to sort out last month's snafu (which, I regret to > tell the blood-howlers, was resolved to everyone's satisfaction) and get an > angle on your ideas. We stated our respective positions and they differed - > it really can end there. Some of you chaps want one thing, we are doing > something else. So, just drop it. Unless you have a vested interest in > something we have done (and those who did not left the nasty taste in the > mouth last month), you can be sure that we have listened to everything you > have said about us and, for reasons best known to ourselves, have decided to > take another course of action. Why the stress? > > Believe me, if we had left ourselves open from a legal standpoint, certain > parties on this very mailing list would have been on to us like a bullet. I > know they checked. And I know some took legal advice. The issue is not yours alone. What many of us see here is a bad precedent being set, and if not corrected, it will lead to two separate interpretations of the OGL. This is BAD. What it means that, when there are eventually one or more lawsuits over this, one side will be proven wrong. It has the potential, but not certainty, to damage, cripple or destroy this industry that has grown in WotC's shadow. Standards are a good thing, and unless this is settled in a positive manner (meaning a single result, as opposed to fizzling out), it will be like a cancer. Will it really impact things this year? Next year? Five years from now? We don't know, have no way of possibly knowing. But when it happens, it will be sudden and very bad, whichever way it goes. I admit that my interpretation might be wrong (IANAL), but I have yet to see any proof that your interpretation is right. The lack of proof against does not make something true. Frequent protestations without logical reasoning do not prove your case. And it seems like this is being left to slide... -Mike __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
