On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Sixten Otto wrote: > I think we're on the same page with regard to intent, anyway. I'd say that > these are my best ideas. Version A is better if the list of things that's > OGC varies from item to item. Version B opens all of the rules, and lists > the specific source for each reused item. If you intend to open all of the > rules, then I like B better, especially because it lists specific sources > for things.
?? I thought you were the one who thought there shouldn't be two sets of negatives. :) And since Clark said not to assume any previous non-OGC could be called PI now, I'm in favor of your earlier designation of the PI elements of the items taken from CC, CC2 & RR. The main reason is that now you've relied on a vague terms like "any game rules" to identify OGC. I think it's easier to be specific about the elements that are PI rather than relying what may be differing opinions on what constitues a game rule. alec _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
