What might be more feasible is something of a "certified" status.� For instance, a group of Contributors (Fictional Title: Open Gaming Union) develop a list of standards that they view as an "ideal" OGL-interpretation (not the only possible reading, but clearly not in violation of it).�
Ugh. In gaming at least, in practice such things end up dominated precisely by those who have the time and obsession to put into it because they're not busy making products anyone really wants to buy. And notice that efforts to do less commanding things like establish archives of open content have all tanked out, or at least are not proceeding ahead by great leaps and bounds. It'd be the same people to be involved in this kind of things - are we justified in expecting that we'd all suddenly get much wiser and more cooperative precisely when more competitive advantage is at stake?
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
