> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of The Sigil > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 2:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Ogf-l] Explanation of "Crippled" (Long) > > Actually, it's almost in reverse - I don't want people who like the creature > to see it's in my work and thus look favorably on my work (I would prefer > that it stand on its own merit). I would rather like those who like my work > to see the creature in my work and look favorably upon the source (in this > case, Clark). So rather than, "they like Clark's stuff, this will > predispose them to like my stuff," I am looking for, "they like my stuff, > this will predispose them to like Clark's stuff." > > Perhaps a fine line of difference, but hopefully you see the point. The > "they like mine, they'll like Clark's" is the #1 reason for me. Using a > recognized and accepted name is the means to that goal. And of course, as a > matter of general principle, I think the more open stuff, the better, but > realism sublimates that to "they like mine, they'll like Clark's."
Fair enough. And kudos for believing so strongly in credit where credit is due. But then the only one hurt by restrictive PI under this theory is the one who declared the restrictive PI, because he or she is less likely to receive proper credit. If they choose to accept this "harm", that's their business. And it certainly does not prevent you from reusing the OGC. Martin L. Shoemaker Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com http://www.UMLBootCamp.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
