<<It seems very unlikely that Hasbro, which owns the copyright for the open
gaming license, is going to be open to the kind of revisions the community
would ultimately like to see, and (thank the makers) it's hard to enforce
retroactive changes to the OGL. However, I don't see why the OGL couldn't
become subordinate to another open license that was developed by the
community to suit its own needs.>>
Because 90% of the OGC in existence is based, in some way, on the d20 SRDs. If Hasbro doesn't play ball then it undercuts a lot of things.
Now, I have mentioned in the past having an interpretive license, one that says effectively, "by applying this license I agree to all the following interpretations of the OGL, yadah yadah."
That would serve part of the goal, however, it then not only clarifies people's positions, but it would potentially estop them from raising contrary positions at trial. That latter fact concerns some people.
Other people who aren't stepping in the gray areas won't feel the need to use a secondary license in any case. They'll assume that they are handling things clearly enough and are unlikely to be sued.
The people who are tap dancing in the gray areas will avoid a clarifying license like the plague, because it might disallow them from doing things in the gray area (which would, with a clarifying license suddenly no longer be vague).
A clarifying license doesn't require Hasbro's approval. It would, however, take a concerted effort from numerous smaller vendors before it would take on any life of its own.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
