> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Steve Peterson wrote:
>
> > I think my thesis has gotten a bit lost in all the discussion; my claim
> > (perhaps wacky) is that placing additional minor and reasonable
restrictions
> > on the *use* of open content under the OGL will increase the amount of
> > usuable open content from non-WotC publishers and reduce the number of
> > violations of the OGL.
>
> Yes, but those additional restrictions (whether they are minor and/or
> reasonable is a debatable subject) are a violation of the current OGL.
> And under section 9 of the license OGC published under 1 version of the
> OGL can be used in any version of the OGL:
>
> "9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish
> updated versions of this License. You may use *any* authorized version of
> this License to copy, modify and distribute *any* Open Game Content
> originally distributed under *any* version of this License."
> [emphasis (*) mine]
>
> So the your idea is essentially dead in the water - regardless of whether
> or not it is correct.
>
> alec
>
I think you're right Alec; there's already too much stuff out there to make
any drastic changes and backwards compatibility is rather important.
However, it would be quite easy to draft something called the NewOGL that
uses similar language as OGL 1.0a (but is not a updated version of the OGL
and thus not subject to section 9) and simply release the SRD under the
NewOGL as well as 1.0a. Frankly, this wouldn't even disrupt much since so
little use of non-SRD outside material has occurred. The worst effect of
this would be having multiple versions of open gaming licenses around and
generating more confusion. So the trade-off is additional confusion and mess
for the possiblity of increasing the amount of open content and reducing the
number of violations.
Steven Palmer Peterson
www.Second-World-Simulations.com
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
