When you don't have anyone stating the actual facts, then you only have conjecture, assumptions based on typical scenarios. Thank you for giving us some information. But unless you or someone else in the know wish to continue to provide that kind of information, there's still going to be assumptions made. You can't stop assumptions off of wishful thinking. If you want the information to be accurate, then it's the responsibility of the ones with that information to share it. Conversation about the issues isn't going to stop just because you don't provide the information. For instance, EVERYONE here, before you came along just now, thought real lawyers were involved with the GSL (which is a natural assumption considering lawyers should be the ones handling contracts). According to your testimony here, no lawyers are involved whatsoever. So don't pick the most vocal guy out of the crowd and blame him for all the assumptions. People are going to converse with what little information they are given, fill in the blanks with what is known about such things, and from that information an extended view of the situation is going to develop. If you want that view to be correct(ed), then you need to speak up more often.
__________________
My current view of the OGL: Though accomplishing exactly what it was meant to do, it is flawed for not providing WOTC more latitude.
My current view of the GSL: section 2 and subsections 6.1, 11.1, and 11.3 need to be completely rewritten to protect the licensee from abuse, but the rest of the GSL is commendable and provides loss leader dynamics superior to the OGL, as the point to being a loss leader is pointing the community toward the loss leader.
Last edited by Corjay; 13th September 2008 at 07:57 PM..
| 
And yet another word from our sponsors
