<<Trolling? I'll bite.
>>
I don't think it was trolling at all. Another list member already agreed with me.
<<Ok.... Let's try it another way, a human has to be able to understand whatOther OGL publishers have to be able to use
the OGC is, and that it is OGC.
OGC listed in your data files to build off of (it is an OGC bit, after all).
And Wizards needs a way to read it to enforce their licence.. If they can't
acertain what is OGC and what is not, and that it is used correctly, the easiest thing for them to do is issue a C&D. >>
If I produce something in Chinese and Wizards has no staff members who understand Chinese, then it is not my responsibility to translate it into English for them. The OGL makes no such requirement. And any C&D or lawsuit would be entirely frivolous
Similarly, if I produce a word processing file formatted on a Macintosh-specific word processor which can't be read on PCs, it is not my responsibility to reformat it for WotC if they don't have that piece of software.
There is no requirement that I have to provide my OGC in a format or written language that a given publisher will find particularly convenient to use. Only that I clearly designate my OGC.
The fact that I distribute data electronically, and distribute it in a format that's easy for me and my target audience to use, but isn't particularly accessible to everyone in the world is just part of life. Would you honestly expect everyone who produces OGC in Russian to submit a copy in English for all vendors to use? I wouldn't. I'd consider that an unreasonable burden that goes beyond the scope of the license.
<<Point taken, but then, if Wizards can't tell if you aren't following their
licence, they have the right to issue a C&D. IANAL, but I think they get to
define where that point is.>>
Oh, no they don't get to define how the license works. They DO get to choose when to threaten a lawsuit, and if you want to ruffle their feathers and risk that, then it is up to you. But courts do not exist merely to bang a gavel and let one party unilaterally interpret contracts (unless the contract's language specifically allows for such unilateral interpreting power).
WotC gets to issue statements on intent and interpretation, but their interpretation is not wholly binding as the only valid interpretation. Final adjudication is a role for a court or a mediator (if a licensing dispute goes to mediation).
Admittedly, always interpreting the license the way WotC does is likely to make you less likely to receive a C&D, but that's different than defining what behavior actually does and does not constitute adherence to the license.
Lee
