I think you are inferring things here that haven't been said. You make it sound as if publishers don't want some people to reuse OGC after releasing it. As far as I know the only people that talk about not using more than a certain percentage or waiting 6 months are OGC reusers *not* suppliers.
>From what I recall there is at least one product out there that has used OGC from something else *before* that other thing was published! This topic was originally about being polite to OGC sources and I think that the only comment I recall from an OGC supplier was Clark saying that he would be less likely to sue someone who broke the OGC if they had asked for consent before releasing a product. Even that doesn't seem like a restriction, to me. It looks like Clark is saying that if you have been polite but cock up he'll be less likely to yank your OGL in court. I don't see why there is a problem if someone like Vicki Potter wants to email someone like Clark Peterson and politely asking if she can name his products as the source of OGC in her product (something that is illegal under the OGL without an additional licence). She is the one taking the risk that he will ignore her. Perhaps there *would* be a problem if every gaming group put up an OGC website and every GM emailed an OGC publisher to ask for consent, but until that day comes and email accounts can't cope, I can't see a need for publishers to do anything. I don't even think they *have* a plan that people won't use their content. If I put my criticism hat on, the worst I could say about publishers is that they don't target their OGC/PI definitions at GMs. Because they usually seem to see other publishers as the only people reusing their content, some of them don't clarify this as much as they need to. Other publishers know how to work around the confusion but people new to the OGL are baffled. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maggie Vining" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:19 PM > When you use the OGL you give your word that people may use your OGC under > the terms of the license. IMO, bad business is to produce something under a > license and then expect others to behave as if there was no license, or more > to the license than what is written. From what I am reading many publishers > on this list have some kind of understanding that is not obvious to those > outside of your circle. Open Content users see a license and an opportunity > and they have done nothing wrong by using your OGC. The wrongness of using > it is in your prerspectives not in the written document on your products! As > a result, I think many of you are setting yourselves up for hurt. Your very > first message to OGC users is your OGL, and that message says that there is > nothing wrong with them reusing your OGC under the terms in the license. > > I strongly encourage OGC producers to plan for people to use their OGC in > the way that is spelled out in the license and to not rely on your current > vision of courtesy. > > _______________________________________________ > Ogf-l mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l > _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
