----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I think PI is a useful part of the OGL, but don't see any point in > > using it to defend something in a product UNLESS that thing is a > > valuble part of your campaign setting. And if I did think something > > was worth PIing then I wouldn't want to release the rules that > > followed that name. > > Ah, but in the case of things released under the OGL you might not > have a choice: if the rules are in any way derivative of the rules in > the SRD (and most people would agree that it's hard to create a D20 > System spell, using the D20 System standard format, referencing D20 > System game mechanics, etc. without the spell being derivative of the > D20 System SRD) they are required to be Open Content. So from what you are saying: *IF* I don't want to release a big bunch of content, I still have to release any rules that LOOK like the SRD. But I CAN chop out as much as possible like names of the rules or any flavour text if I want to. However, that *IF* would imply an intention to cripple content and I don't totally agree that everyone that creates that sort of content IS trying to cripple it. Maybe some people want to cripple things, but certainly not the people that add those licences or provide an email address for people that want to reuse stuff. > > Clark CAN do what he wants with his own stuff, but I don't really > > understand his reasoning on this yet. Perhaps I should search the > > archives for postings by Clark, as I would love to know WHY he feels > > this way of doing things is benificial to him. > > You won't have to go back very far in the archives to find his > reasoning. In the last month he's said it at least three times > (possibly more) in this thread alone. At the time he was trying to > figure out how to protect his Product Identity in R&R while at the > same time making the Open Content as easy to use as possible, he > thought that the PI license he came up with was less cumbersome than > the alternatives -- end of story. I did see what Clark said then and, as I didn't *GET* the reasoning for other people still doing the same thing a long time after the R&R, I asked again. However, I'm not going to push the question any more as it just sounds like I'm bashing Clark if I do that (and I certainly didn't intend that). David Shepheard _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
