From: "Brad Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > kevin kenan
> >
> > The proposed wording change eliminates or minimizes these costs
> > and does so with very little downside.
>
> OGC doesn't have to be rules. THAT is the material you'll lose
> track of.
I stand by my statement that the change has many benefits with very
little downside. The purpose of the OGL is to keep rules and materials
which use rules open, anything else is just gravy. From the OGL FAQ:
Q: That's not very Open then, is it?
A: The License specifically limits the Product Identity to non-Game
Rule content. The Open Gaming License is primarily designed to
provide a strong copyleft and an Open (meaning "freedom to copy,
modify and distribute") License for Game Rules and materials that
use Game Rules. Content that is not Game Rules or material that
uses Game Rules that is aggregated with such content need not be
subject to the terms of this License.
So the downside of the change is that if an original document somehow
vanishes from the net, then the exact status of some non-rule oriented
material (material the OGL isn't specifically designed to cover) may
become ambiguous. Seems like a pretty low-impact downside.
In a practical sense, the risk is even less given that publishers will
most likely archive all of their source material in case their use of
some material is challenged.
If this is really a worry, we could add a clause requiring that
publishers maintain copies of all their source material. But I don't
think it is necessary.
-kenan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
