Brad Thompson wrote:
> > Should redactions be made explicit?
>I'd do as little as possible. There is a LOT of material out there now
>and it is growing rapidly. Cleaning up such material will be an enormous
>editorial task.
Certainly. For that matter, "just" redacting it (not to mention reproducing
the content in the first place) will be a whole LOT of work. Especially if
it's to be done in a way that leaves the text sensible (for instance, in a
narrative about several characters, the names of which are all PI, when you
might need to use {NPC1}, {NPC2}, etc.).
>Section 11 does not preclude searchable tables of metadata. Think of it as
>the difference between the card catalog and a big sign saying "Get Monte
>Cook's latest work here for less!"
But a simple catalog wouldn't actually need to be done under the OGL, so
that's not really the issue. I'm concerned more with a repository. I think
you're right, though: as long as one never made any statements anywhere
else about specific "contributors" to the archive ("compiles work from all
major publishers!") and was careful to state specifics only in a factual
context in the archive itself ("click here for content from Atlas Games")
that one would probably not trip the marketing clause.
Sixten Otto
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
