On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Faustus von Goethe wrote: > Two points in response (mostly based on the fact that I HAVE been using a > lot of S&S stuff - scanning an OCRing it and extracting the good bits): > > 1. I can't help but agree (indeed have brought it up on this list myself) > that their PI designation is a little heavyhanded and somewhat hard to > follow in places, BUT a little conservative thought and I did not find it > truly hard to pick out the parts I was sure were OK. I would characterize > the use of the word "crippled" to be more than a little heavy handed. They > are conservative. > > 2. The notion that "other companies are following suit" simply isn;t > correct. In fact, the industry is all over the map on this one. Check out > "Soverign Stone" for instance. Wide open. Great stuff, too.
Except the SSCS has the most nebulous designation of PI possible. All they did was take the language from the OGL as to what *may* be claimed as PI and said "ok, that's our PI." While I still think it's pretty easy to pull out OGC fairly confidently, if I were taking large chunks I might be somewhat concerned with whether or not what I'm taking is a "thematic element" - even in the chapters that are entirely designated as OGC, all "thematic elements" are designated as PI. alec _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
