--- Faustus von Goethe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am curious to hear what Alec says about this. > > Faust
Since you specifically asked, I think Clark's makes a strong arguement for it being a single license covering multiple products rather than being a product-by-product license. But I also think it's somewhat irrelevant. Why? Because I just can't see any publisher who actively & intentionally fails to come into compliance for any single product not also screwing up most of their other products. While it may be simple to accidentally publish an OGL product that isn't in compliance, it actually requires a decent amount of effort to remain in non-compliance after being notified of the initial mistake. So I can't really see any publisher who fails to fix their mistakes as not making similar mistakes in the future. Meaning that even if the license is product-by-product, a publisher who screws up and intentionally doesn't fix the issue is likely to be facing the problem with most products they publish, since they clearly don't care about being in compliance. Of course one big problem is the apparent fact that currently it's possible for a fair amount of mistakes & violations to go unchecked. Everybody wants to "play nice" and WotC doesn't have the manpower to be concerned with anything but the most blatant types of violations. So it really doesn't come off as a big deal if a publisher screws up S.15 or has a less than clear identification of OGC. Most of the time the parties who can take action aren't even likely to notice. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
