Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 253379" data-attributes="member: 2013">Agreed...Afraid I have to agree with Wulf on this one.I also have an issue with &quot;crippleOGC&quot; - for example, &quot;the creature's stat block is OGC, but the creature's name is PI.&quot;&nbsp; How the heck is someone else going to be able use that and maintain any sense of linkage to the original?&nbsp; (Answer: they're not).I see publishers wanting to protect their stuff, but as I've said on the OGF-L boards, it wouldn't surprise me to see a publisher take the absurdity of trying to make it hard to locate the OGC to the extreme and designate:&quot;all prepositions and pronouns, as well as all content derived from the SRD, are considered OGC.&nbsp;&nbsp; All other stuff is Closed Content.&quot;&nbsp; Now explain again to me - how I am supposed to find the OGC and the Closed stuff?Bah.&nbsp; Fie on publishers who don't comply with the OGL's terms - &quot;you must CLEARLY designate which portions of your work are OGC&quot; (emphasis mine).&nbsp; Again, I lay down the gauntlet to publishers - if a six-year-old can't go through your book with a highlighter and highlight exactly all of the OGC the first time through, without missing any OGC and without highlighting anything that is NOT OGC, let me suggest to you that you aren't in compliance with the OGL (which requires &quot;clear delineation&quot;).&nbsp; IMO, the OGL requirement that OGC and non-OGC must be clearly delineated is the part of the OGL most frequently not complied with.&nbsp; In fact, I am surprised when companies DO comply with it - I think over 80% of the companies out there are absolutely NOT in compliance on this point.&nbsp; They're not even close.Points to Wulf, BTW, for complying with it nicely, with &quot;this page is Open Content&quot; in HoHF<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />warves.--The Sigil</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 253379, member: 2013"] [b]Agreed...[/b] Afraid I have to agree with Wulf on this one. I also have an issue with "crippleOGC" - for example, "the creature's stat block is OGC, but the creature's name is PI." How the heck is someone else going to be able use that and maintain any sense of linkage to the original? (Answer: they're not). I see publishers wanting to protect their stuff, but as I've said on the OGF-L boards, it wouldn't surprise me to see a publisher take the absurdity of trying to make it hard to locate the OGC to the extreme and designate: "all prepositions and pronouns, as well as all content derived from the SRD, are considered OGC. All other stuff is Closed Content." Now explain again to me - how I am supposed to find the OGC and the Closed stuff? Bah. Fie on publishers who don't comply with the OGL's terms - "you must CLEARLY designate which portions of your work are OGC" (emphasis mine). Again, I lay down the gauntlet to publishers - if a six-year-old can't go through your book with a highlighter and highlight exactly all of the OGC the [b]first time through[/b], without missing any OGC and without highlighting anything that is NOT OGC, let me suggest to you that [b]you aren't in compliance with the OGL[/b] (which requires "clear delineation"). IMO, the OGL requirement that OGC and non-OGC must be clearly delineated is the part of the OGL most frequently not complied with. In fact, I am surprised when companies DO comply with it - I think over 80% of the companies out there are absolutely NOT in compliance on this point. They're not even close. Points to Wulf, BTW, for complying with it nicely, with "this page is Open Content" in HoHF:Dwarves. --The Sigil [/QUOTE]

Verification