On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Clark Peterson wrote: > "Dang, I thought the combining of entries was one of > the really great innovations of your proposal. Hate > to see it go by the wayside because of the hyper > orientation over the word "exact"." > > Frankly, I havent abandoned it. I just found an > alternative way. I havent chosen between alternatives > yet. I still like the original way. > > I just wanted comments on the new way.
Ok, I think if any one way is acceptable under the license, the both are. My preference is your first. I think Faust raises a good point about the expanding s.15 problem however. Think this was something Martin was getting at as well (i.e. if it's okay for Clark to require re-users to individually list each creature in their s.15 why shouldn't Clark have to himself). I'm wondering if it's possible to make the credit issue something that is outside of the OGL. It would lose the fact that re-users are *required* to include such credit if you move to that approach however. Essentially Clark would still have the original credit block for each creature and then ask re-users to include such credit block if the use a creature somewhere in the product. Probably either with the creature itself or on the products main copyright page (not s.15 of the OGL, but the normal explanation of copyright that still should appear in an OGL product). Just an idea. alec _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
