On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:49:30 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > <<If I can source something from the public domain, then I'm
> > clearly >not< forced to source it from your PI claim, ergo,
> > I'm not violating your PI claim. (Your PI claim is essentially
> > worthless).
>
> Ryan, how then does the license offer PI protection to "concepts".
> Concepts, unless patented as a process, are always in the public
> domain. You can't copyright or trademark a concept, can you?
>
> I think your readings of the license might make more sense to me if
> there weren't things on the PI list that don't seem like they are
> subject to most normal forms of IP protection involving written
> works ("concepts" and "poses", for example).
And as always seems to happen in these discussions, someone brings in
concepts of IP protection that are completely different from PI
protection (except for similarity of spelling).
Whether something can be copyrighted, trademarked, patented or
whatever in the outside world has little or no bearing on whether or
not it can be claimed as Product Identity within the boundaries of
the voluntarily-entered-into the Open Gaming License. When you
decide to publish under the OGL, you agree to accept the terms,
definitions, rules, and restrictions contained in that license.
Within the license, concepts can be declared to be Product Identity
even if those same concepts would not be afforded copyright or
trademark protection outside of the license.
When Ryan used the term "source something from the public domain"
above, he more accurately meant "source something either from the
existing body of valid Open Game Content independent of the claimed
PI, or from the body of material outside of the OGL framework that
can be shown to have existed prior to the PI claim." A mouthful,
which is probably why he shortened it to "from the public domain."
Spike Y Jones
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
