> I am > not aware of any other > OGC publisher with an in-house legal staff (and I > don't count Clark as his > own staff - sorry Clark).
Dont worry about it. I dont consider me to be in-house staff either. I would sub-out any "serious" legal work, such as a law suit. I dont have the time for that crap. Now, I do have a leg up on some things. But that isnt the same as an in-house counsel. > The "everything derived" designation is becoming a > de-facto fallback for > either a) lazy publishers, or b) publishers that > want to ensure that nobody > ever reuses their material. Part of that is my fault, but you are overlooking I think the most important dynamic here. It isnt that people are lazy or are trying to prevent reuse. They are using what they see has worked. Many people based there stuff off what we (SSS) did in CC and RR back in the day. I dont do my stuff that way now. But remember, we were being real cautious then. The OGL was like a big pool that you dont know if the water is warm or freezing cold. I'll admit, our initial approach was to dip a toe in, not to jump in up to our necks. No one knew how it was all going to work. I dont think the same reasons for caution exist today. But, the model many of us adopted--which was very fitting for early adopters--isnt necessarily the best way to do things now. That is why I have changed how I do my designations. But then, I am maybe a little more flexible, being a lawyer. Companies without lawyers find the one way that works and there is a tendnecy to stick with it--why consult the lawyer again to make changes. So I dont want to say that people use the more conservite all encompasing approach because they are lazy or up to no good. There are other reasons that are valid. Clark Remember, ===== http://www.necromancergames.com "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel" _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
