On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:36:59 +0100, Mike Dymond wrote: >Tru but they do not then get published with a licence that says that >you can freely copy bits. I think the OGL is great, it allows you to >make some stuff available and it allows you to protect other stuff. >That second bit is essential.
One of the problems with your perception of Product Identity is that the license was not designed as a means of protecting material that appears outside of Open Game Content. There are three classes of material in an OGL-licensed work: Open Game Content, Product Identity, and "everything else." A fundamental assumption of the license is that the third type of material is sufficiently protected by normal copyright law. Example: A publisher produces a work with 90 percent closed content and 10 percent open content. The publisher only declares Product Identity that appears in the last 10 percent. Under your theory, that publisher has exposed his work to infringement by not declaring Product Identity that appears in 90 percent of the book. But in reality, that material is just as protected as any work published outside of the license. >Sorry I need to point out that you have got confused with the two >Steve Jackson's in the industry. Thanks for pointing that out. I somehow forget there were two Steve Jacksons in gaming. One of them should consider declaring his name Product Identity to avoid this confusion. ;-). -- Rogers Cadenhead, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 07/02/2003 Weblog: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
