From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brad
Thompson
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 1:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ogf-d20-l] A Cautionary Note - The D20 System License
<< > I think Ryan has been clear (and the added emphasis above reaffirms)
that
> there are not two mutually exclusive categories, as you suggest,
> but three:
I know what Ryan said, and I believe he said it in good faith. You
emphasized that anything can be OGC, that derivatives works must be OGC, and
that mechanics which are an enhancement over prior art must be OGC. I don't
see how that adds up to a third, unspoken category of 'closed content'. The
most I could possibly stretch out of that is that there is a third, unspoken
category of OGC that isn't required to be OGC but is anyway out of the
goodness of the author's heart. >>
I guess we're looking at the same words and coming away with different
interpretations, then. I look at the definition of Open Game Content, and it
looks like it does not include game mechanics and the methods, procedures,
processes and routines to the extent such content embody the Product
Identity or are not enhancements over prior art.
Need we any more prrof that natural languages are imprecise, when two
careful, diligent readers can come away with divergent interpretations?
Martin L. Shoemaker
Emerald Software, Inc. -- Custom Software and UML Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.EmeraldSoftwareInc.com
www.UMLBootCamp.com
