At 2:04 -0700 5/31/04, Clark Peterson wrote:
> Valid point. As with a lot of things, if you take
any position but
the most-extreme (at either extreme), it is a
somewhat-arbirtary
position, often without objective support for why
your position is
valid and one just a little bit to either side
At 11:15 AM 5/31/2004 -0400, Martin L. Shoemaker wrote:
Allow Doug some hyperbole. Then re-ask his question as "five years from
now". That IS gonna happen, or at least is statistically likely: some
company that has written some useful, desirable OGC will be out of existence
five years from now, and
In a message dated 5/31/2004 11:34:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
company I have contacted has responded quickly and positively to my
e-mails and I'm curious to hear about the companies that have not
responded to your queries.
>>
I'd be willing to talk about this offl
On May 31, 2004, at 10:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have found companies that won't even respond to queries about OGC/PI designations that are vague.
Can you tell us which companies you've had this problem with? Each company I have contacted has responded quickly and positively to my e-mails
In a message dated 5/31/2004 10:47:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At present it doesn't matter, as I have yet to meet a company that WON'T
honestly answer questions and even give special permission--but what
about fifty years from now, when the company that wrote a popula
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ogf-l-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Mucchiello
> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 10:53 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] "Stealing" OGC
>
> At 10:46 AM 5/31/2004 -0400, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
> >At present it doesn't matter, as I have yet to me
Joe Mucchiello wrote:
Is that really a concern? I'm a staunch "clear OGC or nothing" person
but please, don't talk about OGC reuse 50 years from now. That's just
over the top.
It is an abstract concern. As far as we know, copyrights are going to
wind up being infinite--and the OGC needs to be u
On Sun, 30 May 2004, Ian Hewitt wrote:
> Would it be incredibly complicated to work with different
> individuals to develop the world? My thoughts are that if it were
> to be published at some time in the future contracts and payment may
> lead to confusing legal issues that I would be ill equippe
At 10:46 AM 5/31/2004 -0400, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
At present it doesn't matter, as I have yet to meet a company that WON'T
honestly answer questions and even give special permission--but what about
fifty years from now, when the company that wrote a popular game book is
simply gone?
(Milk flo
Clark Peterson wrote:
Besides, you can see how people disagree on clarity,
particularly people who are just fence sitters who
like to bitch and moan and who dont actually use the
license. Some of them think stuff is unclear or
"crippled" (I use that term because it has been used,
not because I like
> Valid point. As with a lot of things, if you take
> any position but
> the most-extreme (at either extreme), it is a
> somewhat-arbirtary
> position, often without objective support for why
> your position is
> valid and one just a little bit to either side of
> yours is not.
I dont know abo
At 20:23 -0700 5/29/04, Clark Peterson wrote:
Problem is that you will have people with the hacker
mentality that anything less than 100% open is
unacceptable, so clarity of designation isnt
necessarily the problem.
Besides, you can see how people disagree on clarity,
particularly people who are ju
12 matches
Mail list logo
