It's really easy to end
up with a long and ultimately futile venture and just become bitter,
and I don't think there's so much good will or enthusiasm in the world
that we can afford to waste it lightly.
Part of my problem fully accepting the situation as untenable is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because it's declared to be untenable people don't try to make the change, and things remain unappealing vaporware criticisms. Because they are vaporware, nobody takes the suggestions seriously. Which in turn becomes proof that things are untenable.
It's like the way the press treats third party candidates in some elections. The press frequently screams, "you are wasting your vote". The problem is that while people believe that, the people who do act sometimes do just throw their votes to a guaranteed loser. If, however, we operated from first principles and people just voted for their favorites instead of believing that there actions were wasted, then you get change sometimes.
Without getting too political: Ventura threw the press a curve ball in MN because people ignored the "you are wasting your time and vote" mantra.
At the same time, it all too often is a bunch of doomed effort, perhaps not wasted, but ultimately doomed.
So, I think it's not that I misunderstand the implications. Believe me, I do understand at least some of them deeply. I was the one who raised the point in private conversations to one list member (before raising it here), that you may be estopped from claiming to have certain interpretations of the OGL if you make use of a clarifying meta-license. I think that shows a real understanding about the pure legal implications of these ideas. The concerns are real.
With gray areas, there's a standoff. If I enter a gray area are you really going to expend time and money on a potentially losing cause? With greater clarity, the question becomes: are you willing to spend time and money on a guaranteed win? So, clarity can both shield you from litigation, but it can also invite litigation.
At the same time, I'd like to point out that both of us were recently on a discussion list recently where real publishers were considering switching over to the OGL and I heard a number of times, "man, the OGL is just so hazy on some points that it scares me." And those were things I'd heard from some of those parties offlist too, during earlier discussions. So, I think that clarification should be of interest to people interested in community building, and might not be of interest to people who view more "community members" as more market competition.
So, I think that while the "reality injection" is appreciated, I'd offer a counter-caution not to assume that the status quo is necessarily immutable.
I just thought your focus was really appropriate not in focusing on why changes might help people entering the industry, but how they might help people _already_ in it. That's a really critical viewpoint for obtaining buy in -- a purely self-motivated economic one.
I've now had a few smaller publishers chime in over time, privately, also expressing hopes for revisions. So, I don't view the discussion futile, but I think your posts help to do what I'd call "expectation management" if you follow me. And for that, I think you've added some clarity to the discussion.
In general, your viewpoint is particularly welcomed, because you, like Clark, try hard on working to invite people into the fold instead of erecting a big "members only" sign. I think that is laudable behavior, and good not only for public relations but for the future growth of the industry.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
