On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:29:36 +0100, Mike Dymond wrote: >Firstly I looked at the intent of the OGL. It does two things, it >provides a framework that allows one publisher to re-use already >created material without fear of recrimination. It also allows the >same publisher to protect some of his creations and prevent others >from using it (this is PI).
The purpose of product identity was never intended to be that broad, according to discussions here at the time the OGL was drafted. Product identity allows a publisher to declaratively indicate that some elements which may appear in open game content are not open. It's a safeguard against unintentional release of trademarks and other elements in open content. >Company B knows of Company A's material and really likes >the place names and character names that Company A has created but >does not like any of the new rules. So Company B does not need to >include A in their section 15 but they still go ahead and use all >the PI that Company A invented. >Now according to you that is perfectly valid as Company A and >Company B do not have a contract between them! The absence of a contract between two parties doesn't mean it's OK for one to steal from the other. No one has claimed that it's OK to knowingly use someone else's copyrighted or trademarked work outside of the OGL. Company A has trademark law and copyright law to pursue an infringement claim against Company B. It doesn't need your expansive definition of Product Identity to protect its interests. -- Rogers Cadenhead, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 07/01/2003 Weblog: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
