Okay, then call it "crippling the OGC but providing an optional
wheelchair to help with the PI".
Again, I think that's even overstating it. Take the Pocket Grimoire series. The spell names make up only a tiny fraction of the overall volume of information that is available as OGC.
If I wanted to use that data, I'd spend so much time scanning and/or typing in the data, that I can't imagine that even if every last spell name in the book had been PI'd that it would account to more than 1% of the total volume. The fact that they weren't PI'd only makes a really modest difference in the work it would require me to employ the spells in the book.
The only time this would "cripple" some of the OGC would be when it applies to certain lists of Domain spells. You'd have to stick back in your own spell names if there was no PI license for the spell names.
Since a PI license can also give you the ability to reference the source of each and every spell covered by the PI license, and since that is an _enhancement_ that is not normally available under the OGL, I'd say that the OGC has not really been crippled. There are pros and cons to this approach, a little of each. And I'd say that, particularly when a PI license is there, only the fact the people feel personally offended by having to attach a PI license is at issue. For many of the PI licenses I've seen, they are pretty open. If people include them they want you to use their PI'd spell names.
Perhaps there's some crippling without such a license, or with a license that is obnoxiously restrictive, but that's not what this thread is about. It's about a PI license that was easy to use.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
