Sure, I'll play. How about the phrase "d20" is a term with meaning and is therefore language and concept alike.
I think it's a matter of difference in how we read the OGL. I'll crumble it down into two questions:
Is "d20" a concept? No. It is merely a convenient written shorthand for "icosahedral die." Icosahedral dice are demonstrably not original to WotC/TSR (since Gygax himself has admitted that the concept came froma science kit with regular polyhedrons in them). Perhaps it's because I am not fluent in lawyerese, but I was under the impression that a "concept" is essentially an "abstract idea." I see the relationship of d20:icosahedral die in the same way I see the relationship of ampersand:and - the ampersand is a convenient shorthand for the concept of a conjunctive clause, but - and this is important - the ampersand is not a concept in and of itself. Similarly, "d20" is not a concept in and of itself.
This can be better done by word association. I say, "d20." What do you think of?
If it's a book or work such as the SRD (maybe from "d20 system"), that's an object, not a concept.
If it's the nebulous idea of rolling a regular polyhedron with 20 sides for the purposes of generating a random number between 1 and 20 (or possibly 0-9 or 1-10 twice), that's a concept... but it's not what d20 is defined to mean.
If it's an icosahedral die, that's an object, not a concept. (this, BTW, is what d20 is defined to mean, making word association moot).
Is "d20" language? Clearly, d20 is not _a_ language, but it is a created word in the English language. But I again, as mere shorthand, I don't think a single specific term is enough... otherwise (to take the extreme example), I could theoretically PI the words, "the", "is", "an", "a", and "and" and post them to this list to essentially restrict their use entirely. I believe there's a fundamental difference between "word" and "language." It's hard to describe easily, but "language," to me, is fundamentally more than "a word." Language, to me, means copyrightable material - which is by definition longer than a single word.
I think it's a fundamental disagreement - I say language is a *set* of words (more than one) used to define a concept. You say language is "any word I choose." If that's the case, then all of the products out there that have PI sections have closed down the use of words like "the," "a," "and," and so on, as those words are likely as not contained in those sections. I doubt we could get very far in writing with the interpretation you hold.
Again, to me, "language" is not "any word you pick" but "a specific _set_ of words used to convey a concept." (As in, "the language of the contract" which clearly does not refer to the specific words individually used in a contract, but in the lump sum of the words as a continuous string - and if you write about the same concept and that particular string is not duplicated exactly, element by element, the "language" is different).
Both are protectable categories of Product Identity.
Yes. And I don't think "d20" falls into "concept" or "language" (as mentioned above) so it fails the test.
People hate those categories. Nobody ever mentions them, but they are there.
I don't think people hate them - because they know it's probably one of the sections of the OGL that can't be enforced. Again, can I PI the concept of "good vs. evil?" It's a concept, isn't it? Ryan's point that "it must be an enhancement on prior art to become PI" is valid or we'd run out of concepts very quickly as everyone tried to corner the market by PIing all extant concepts.
Here's why I don't think your interpretation is correct... because of what happens if I take it to its extreme. If your interpretation is valid, I will claim as of right now PI on the following concepts - by your reading of the OGL, I have the right to claim any concept I want:
"Good vs. evil"
"man vs. man"
"man vs. nature"
"gods vs. gods"
"gods vs. men"
"adding a bonus to an attribute, skill, or other roll"
"subtracting a penalty from an attribute, skill, or other roll"
"creating a magic item"
"monsters vs. men"
"professions with discrete quantum leaps of proficiency (or, we'll call the shorthand "character classes with levels")"
For purposes of all of the above, any sentient being shall be considered to fall under the term "man."
Likewise, I claim as PI (since the following fall under your definition of "language")
All pronouns in all spoken and written languages on earth. All nouns in all spoken and written languages on earth. All adjectives in all spoken and written languages on earth. All verbs in all spoken and written languages on earth. All adverbs in all spoken and written languages on earth.
The list could go on, but you see how ridiculous this is getting. Now you can't write a thing. That's why I think you need to re-think your position on what constitutes "concepts" and "language" and whether or not "ownership" or "prior art enhancements" are required or not.
Besides, I think the fact that, as mentioned, we had a WotC employee say, "we need to check on that and will probably pull it" renders the discussion of "d20" moot.
But regardless, I think it's an important "stress test" of any reading of the OGL - what happens when you try to push a particular interpretation to its extreme? If it can "break the system entirely" (as your interpretation does by allowing me to shut down all OGL publication), your reading is probably wrong. Either that or you have sown the grounds for someone to try to pull a SCO ("all your OGL work are belong to us"). ;-)
--The Sigil
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
