woodelf wrote:
I'm not referring to its viral, semi-viral, or whatever-you-want-to-call-it nature. I'm referring to things like no requirement to make the OGC easily available in an editable format, or the actual hostility of the license to proper source tracking. *Those*, plus the PI bits, are the parts that i think undermine the goal of open-content development.
I agree. A license revision permitting the attribution of rules and unmodified text to a contributor using the copyright notice from their Section 15 would be a valuable change to the OGL. It's about the only theoretical revision that would have a real effect, IMO.
You don't think mandating that all OGC be freely available in an editable digital format (say, HTML, ASCII, RTF, or somesuch) would have an effect on the development of new open game products? Man, i'd *love* to have easy, free, no-confirmation-required access to the OGC in Spycraft and AU--there's some *really* good stuff in there, a step ahead of D&D, IMHO.
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/
The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us ...and our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between. -- Emperor Turhan _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
