On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 05:24:13 -0000
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still don't understand why people WANT to PI things that sound
> like general terms to me. The current possibilities I have are:
> 
> 1) They are deliberately trying to cripple the OGC
> 2) They don't understand the OGL and think that they have to do
> things that way.
> 
> The only thing I can think is that there is some other reason.
> Something *I* haven't worked out yet or something that people
> haven't mentioned on this list. 

I know a couple of other possibilities that have been mentioned
before on the list.

3) It's easier that way. Doing a proper, accurate, and easy to
understand OGC or PI declaration and/or license takes more time than
doing a sloppy or over-broad one. Clark said that the reason for the
R&R PI license being worded the way it was was that he thought the
alternatives would be too cumbersome. 

(And in the inexact parallel category, compare the Tome of Horrors
OGC system with that of the average D20 book; it would have been a
lot easier for them to just do a simple Section 15 notice with no
attribution of authorship, but they didn't want to take the easy way
out, which meant a lot more work for them in crafting their Section
15.)

4) They're copying the way they've seen other people do it in the
past. This is often related to your #2 point about understanding the
license, but is subtly different; instead of making their own
mistakes, they're relying on the (possibly mistaken) methods used by
others.

5) They didn't think through the implications of their PI
declaration. Again, this is related to #2, but someone could fully
understand the OGL (at least as much as *anyone* understands the OGL)
and still end up PIing things like "Gold" (because of blanket
statements, for instance).

Personally, I think 2, 3, 4, and 5 cover probably 95% of all cases.

Spike Y Jones
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l

Reply via email to