> Maybe this is skewed somewhat, and maybe I'm cynical, but it > seems to me that the whole spirit of the Open Gaming License was > to make a >friggin' huge mass of Open Gaming Content available - > so that people could pick and choose and mix and match. You > would see all sorts of innovations and cross-published stuff (i.e., an > OGC idea >from one company getting used in a product by another > company).
There is a huge mass of OGC. There is nothing in the OGL that says publishers must submit it to a "library" so it can be easily catalogued, and cross-referenced. Consumers have to go find it themselves. > One other thing - is there any way to come up with a uniform system > for >designating OGC, PI, and "none of the above" text? I understand > people want to use >italics for emphasis, but why can't the following > be adopted as a standard? > > --OGC is in normal text. > --PI is "shaded" text (i.e., instead of on a white background it is on a > gray background - this by nature would limit PI to acceptable > amounts instead of the ridiculous amounts we currently see). > --"Neither OGC nor PI" in italics. > > Reserve boldface and underlining for emphasis or headers. OGL enforced typeface design guidelines? What's wrong with putting OGC in distinct boxes? Just because there are no requirements for specifying non-PI/nonOGC material? > Or, even better, follow WotC's lead with the SRD - make all OGC > portions of your books available on your website. Then nobody is > ever in doubt as to what is OGC and what is not. The OGL let's average publishers do this? "If you want to see what parts of this accessory are OGC, you must reference this URL http://... " Eric Anondson _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
