> Sean Campbell
>
> I agree, although I have to wonder why couldn't you
> use the open source model, and simply indicate at the
> front of the product (perhaps in a special
> aknowledgment section) that certain sections of the
> product are OGC, and were developed by so-and-so.
> This happens in open source software source code all
> the time.
>
> I don't see a need to lable every individual bit as
> OGC in the main body of the product--it's too
> distracting for the gamers and DMs who don't care.
I agree with you and Clark that proper identification need not mean marking
everything explicitly. I think this will be something that takes care of
itself over time. Right now we have run this experiment a couple of times
(Wizard's Amulet, Three Days to Kill), and have seen two slightly different
interpretations of what is valid. Over time I think this will get refined
to the point that it is easy to differentiate PI from OGC just my looking at
what all the rest of the publishers have done. There probably won't be one
'best' way, but a few styles will emerge that strike a good balance between
visual appeal and the terms of the OGL. It will be a little bumpy while we
learn what those styles are, but I don't think that is reason to do
something radical like Kevin's suggestion.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
