>How is a PIed name with reuse any better at this than a
>freely-reusable OGCed name? I agree that accurate attribution of
>reused content is great for the consumer *and* the original producer,
>but i don't see how the PIed name helps the matter.
Generally there's a quid pro quo. You wouldn't get attribution rights without a license. The vendor chooses to PI his spell names. He does so to get some extra credits in your book and/or to provide additional protections for his work. Through the same license he gives you rights to refer more explicitly to his PI (to note which is his PI and which isn't). That could help people track down which source is licensing which exact spells. That's useful. Quid pro quo.
Hardly immoral. It's an entirely fair exchange. Everyone down the line gets the benefit of knowing exactly where certain creatures or spells comes from (since the OGL by itself makes that tough info to come by).
Yes, of course they could just give you the rights and ask nothing in return. But that's altruism. Just because quid pro quo arrangements aren't purely altruistic doesn't make Clark and others suddenly license violators or immoral.
>Yes, with an
>OGCed name, they can just change it. Well, they can give a spell a
>new name even if the name is PIed, too.
Right. I'm not debating that. I'm the one challenging people who are de facto attacking Clark and others claiming that this usage is either:
a) not in compliance with the license
b) crippling to the OGC
c) somehow immoral
The very fact that it's trivial to rename a spell is why this usage is not crippling to most OGC.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
