In a message dated 4/26/2004 12:15:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
About the only thing it may offer is an interpretation of the OGL that may jeopardize those thousands of dollars. In fact, such a license, if widely spread may cause Hasbro to halt future OGC releases.
I don't know that it would per se jeopardize thousands of dollars if they didn't use the license. The interpretation would be wholly non-binding on parties not using such a license.
I said it would jeopardize that money if they DO use the license. But be that as it may....
Regarding parties who don't use a clarifying license, a judge would likely listen to briefs, common industry practices, etc.
And one of those amicus briefs would be the clarifying license. The more people signed onto using the clarifying license, the more weight it carries in a court. So whether I use the license or not, it's existence can jeopardize my holdings in a court.
Clarification: I'm neither for nor against such a license. I'm just saying why I feel it will be hard to get the big publishers on board. This meta-license gives them nothing they cannot achieve by picking up a phone or sending an email. And OTOH it will involve an interpretation of the OGL that some percentage of them will feel disadvantages them severely and some other percentage feels disadvantages them somewhat. As a thought exercise, it is an interesting idea. I just don't see it becoming a a reality with major publisher buy in.
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
