> One other thing occurs to me: _I_ can use _my_ > original, non-derivative > content, period, end of sentence, no dispute > possible.
Right. > I have every right to derive a work > which is the exact > same text, minus the OGL. I can even create such a > work by the simple > act of using scissors to cut the OGL out of a copy > of the work, OR by > emailing a copy of my work without the OGL. I am not > bound by the OGL in > that derived work at all. And then I can license > that derived work any > way I want, and the people I license to have never > come within sniffing > distance of the open version. It's in essence an > inverse of releasing > the PHB followed by the SRD. Kind of. As long as you never mix in anything that is derivative of teh SRD or other OGC. > So even though they come in the same binding, the > book stands on its > own, and then the license modifies the book by > adding terms of reuse. I offered that as a way for you to look at the issue to get by your hang up. I wouldnt say that is 100% correct, but it is good enough for the purpose offered--to get you to see that you dont have to publish two products--a non-open work and an open one like WotC did. > Or to speak to the Pattern-developer subset of the > audience, > collectively the book and the license form an > example of the Decorator > pattern at work: the book is a kind of content, and > it can be decorated > with the license, rendering it a new kind of > content; but the two stand > separate. (Sorry, I warned you: UML and Patterns -- > and sleep > deprivation -- are taking over my brain...) OK, now you are scaring me. ;) Clark ===== http://www.necromancergames.com "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
