>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.
Actually, if I were to rate products based on their re-usable OGC, there are more than a score of products from major publishers I can think of just off the top of my head (Necromancer, Bastion, AEG, Fantasy Flight, Green Ronin, etc.) that would rate *exceedingly* high. Even Unearthed Arcana would get high marks (9 out of 10 for re-usability, 10 out of 10 for clear designations). So, your snide comment aside, the only reason "busy" publishers wouldn't be able to involve themselves would be from a lack of desire; their "busy-ness" seems to allow them to qualify already, so how much time-investment could there really be other than to ensure that there is a place on one of the covers for the logo? The biggest time-investment would be from publishers that don't qualify, and who's to say that they would be particularly interested to begin with? I wouldn't expect them to be *unless* it's proven over time that their lack of participation is effecting their sales. Which, consequently, is *exactly* why I threw out the reviewer suggestion for "stamping" such products even if an organization or official certificate/license doesn't exist. I know some reviewers have given lip-service to including remarks/ratings based on OGL issues, though I don't know how many have actually begun to do so. I know at my site I've been considering the idea of doing reviews *solely* on the publisher's handling of OGC designation and clarity, although I've pretty much held-back due to the prospect of pissing some people off. However, given recent discussions, I'm more and more tempted to do just that. Sometimes the boat needs a good rocking. ~Jimmy Domsalla http://qtgg.icehex.net http://www.d20Exchange.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Baugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] How to revise the OGL > On Apr 26, 2004, at 8:13 AM, jdomsalla wrote: > > > 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 > > __________ NOD32 1.629 (20040220) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System. > http://www.nod32.com > > _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
