>From: Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
[FAUST SAID (in response to someone who seemed to be suggesting the
foundation=the license)]
> > "If the foundation changes
> > licenses, then each of the contributors (including
> > WotC) will have to
> > "accept" the new license by releasing their product
> > under it."
>
>HUH?
>
>The foundation has nothing to do with the license. The
>license exists regardless of the foundation. The
>foundation is a nice place to go check the current
>edition of the license and to find a content review
>board and some other things. But what the foundation
>does has not one lick to do with the license. If the
>foundation, which is a legally irrelevant organization
>to who is bound by the licnese, disappears tommorow
>the license still exists. I'm not bound by any acts of
>the foundation, I'm bound by the license.
Exactly my point! I was responding above to someone I believe had made that
error.
[CLARK SAID]
>I just absolutely do not understand why anyone could
>think that the foundation has anything to do with the
>license.
My turn to say "Huh?"
This misconception might have something to do with the fact that the OPEN
GAME LICENSE is:
1. Supposedly developed by the OPEN GAME FOUNDATION.
(DIRECT quotes from Dancey on this.)
2. Distributed by the foundation.
3. Appears *only* on the foundation's web site.
4. Appears *nowhere* on the LICENSE *owners* websites.
5. Is not IDENTIFIED as separate from the foundation on the FOUNDATION's
website.
6. Is DISCUSSED on the foundations mail list AS THOUGH it were the
foundation's license.
7. Is publicly TREATED by the officer of the foundation as though the
FOUNDATION owns it.
8. Is presented (currently) as the only substantive PRODUCT of the
foundation.
9. Is in fact the ONLY GAME LICENSE mentioned on the foundations web site.
10. Ownership is >never< disclaimed by the foundation.
11. Has a strikingly similar NAME as the foundation.
In FACT >everything< about the foundation LOOKS as though it has been
intentionaly set up to encourage the ERROR on the part of the casual reader
that the foundation sponsors and controls the license. It is only if you
read the license itself and spend time considering its ramifications that
you find that this is in fact not the case.
FURTHER, the foundation has been MISREPRESENTED in more than one published
article as the source of the license, and the FOUNDATION has declined on
more than one occasion to correct this obvious (and important) error.
It is this misconception - and the associated notion that the license was
written BY THE FOUNDATION to serve the needs of all gamers - that I am
protesting.
Faust
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
