> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of The Sigil > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 9:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Ogf-l] OGC/PI (again) > > Under copyright law, certain things - notably many of the things that can be > designated as Product Identity - CANNOT be copyrighted nor turned into > copyrighted material (there is a thread in the Publisher's section of > ENWorld to this effect).
I haven't read that thread, but I can guess what it's about. And I think another view is that some of these things are DEBATABLY copyrightable: common opinion says no, certain deep-pocketed interests insist on yes, each side is certain the law is on its side, legal technicalities and such are thrown about, and we'll only really know when we hear from Congress or a court. One of the things I like about the OGL is that, as a contract, it agrees to a way to manage these issues without waiting for Congress or a court to clear up the muddy waters, and without nearly as much money being spent on lawyers. I'm all for less money being spent on lawyers (Clark excepted). > But I think it's interesting that there are significant differences in the > "restrictions" that you agree to with regard to PI and Trademarks in the OGL > itself. The fact that there are significant differences tells me that these > could be read as 7a and 7b, and that my argument applied to PI need not > apply to Trademarks, because the set of restrictions is materially different. I agree that there are significant differences in the use of and restrictions on PI and Trademarks. They are clearly separate concepts, else why invent the PI concept at all? I'm just not sure that those differences change the meaning of "any" from one sentence to the very next sentence. I want "any" to mean different things in those two sentences. I think the intent of the license is for it to mean different things. And I would hope that a court would see it that way. (Well, no, I would hope that this never has to reach a court; but if it must, I hope the court will rule consistent with the intent of the license as I understand it.) But I'm not clear that the meaning of "any" changes based on what it's applied to, or based on the restrictions you agree to regarding what it's applied to. The difference, to me, is in the intent of the license, not in the clear wording of the license itself. That makes for a possible mess. It's hard enough for courts to make sensible decisions on the literal meanings of words sometimes. It's much more messy when they have to decide the intent behind those words. > I hope I'm explaining my point all right, but my wife is here so I have to > leave work (where I'm posting from). Go! Wives are more important than gaming! (Diving for cover after that remark...) Martin L. Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.TabletUML.com -- The UML tool you don't have to learn! _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
