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.
I've been thinking about this. While I think your original proposal is a bad idea, we have seen something similar in the "goodies" license for R&R -- in which the spell names, etc. are designated as PI and then opened up under a separate license for very limited, specific use (referencing the specific spell in question). That seems reasonable to me, and does seem to have encouraged S&S to open more content. I would also strongly encourage OGL publishers who are producing books like the CC, R&R, MYTHIC RACES, etc. to place the title of their book(s) under a license like that: Specifically allowing people to use that PI in order to reference their product. Why? Because then people could use your OGC and direct customers in your direction. For example, it would be great to write an adventure featuring the Illonis and be able to point people in the direction of MYTHIC RACES for "more information". (Although I'd probably still include the stats in my product so that people could use it without the reference.) Ditto pretty much all the monsters in the Creature Collections from S&S. Justin Bacon [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
