Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 2771281" data-attributes="member: 957">I think that is kinda a red herring arguement.Yes, it is 100% true.  I think people do not understand the difference between OGC and public domain material.  Some do not understand that, unlike public domain, the publisher retains 100% ownership of all of their material regardless of its status as either open or IP.  All the OGL grants is the priviledge to re-publish OGC.  And this is a big important difference and truly understanding it may sway some people'e perspective.But it is ultimately irrelevant.  As you said, the OGL gives the power to the next person.When an author puts the OGL on something, then their intent with regard to OGC is no more meaningful than anyone else who correctly uses the license.  It can even be less meaningful.  Ultimately, whoever elects to publish the material in the LEAST restrictive manner is the one whose intent trumps everyone else.Obviously, you have clearly acknowledged this.  So I'm not trying to argue that.  But I think this point is significant and pretty much makes your point about author's intent go away.Now there you are 100% correct.  I agree that >50% of the pro wiki crowd simply wants someone else to do the work and give the results to them.  There is nothing redeemable in that position.</blockquote>