<<When did I say not to use descriptive text. All I'm saying is intermingle
them. Declare proper nouns as PI and just let people copy your material
otherwise. Is this really so bad?
>>
Yes, if a vendor believes that he has something to save in his crafted verbatim expression instead of merely the underlying rules and OGC (which can probably be separated).
<<If you bought a book were the level of writing rose and fell depending on
whether it was the "author's" or text the author borrowed, would you ever
buy such a book again? Or would you seek out the original writer's work and
spend your money there?
>>
I buy education review magazine and occasionally things like law review articles. Any collected work will vary wildy depending on whether text belongs to one author or another. So, even if I dislike 3 authors, I might buy a collected work because of the work of one party. And if that one party feels that he can rewrite questionable sections to improve its quality, then all the better.
Just because OGC is used doesn't mean that it has to be used verbatim.
<<I would much prefer to send you a email and say, "I want to refer to your
book in my book, could you send me an official 'I can use your trademark'
note.:" Having received your permission, I will then just put the spell
name in my book and say look it up in your book. By PIing the spell name, I
have to ask for two licenses, one for the PI and one for the book
trademark. And I have to include your PI in my PI statement so no one else
uses your PI [snip]>>
Or you use the part of the spell that's OGC and come up with your OWN name for it. That's what I expect a lot of these OGL authors are expecting.
Lee
