<<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.>>
Ryan's point is not upheld by the plain language of the license, or else I missed something. I think his point _SHOULD_ have been in the PI definition. I think I would have given him 3 cheers if it were in there. It isn't.
OGC has an "enhancement" requirement. PI neither has that nor has any other express requirement for novelty of any kind.
<<Is "d20" a concept? No. It is merely a convenient written shorthand for
"icosahedral die." >>
I think all words represent metaphorical concepts at some level. When you write "apple", that is a codified representation of the conceptual metaphor of an apple.
<< 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).>>
Is novelty a requirement of PI? Or "an enhancement over the prior art"?
I don't see either of those in the language of the license. There is some implication that the PI must be owned, but it's unclear how one owns a theme (good vs. evil) or a pose (standing upright with hands at the side), for example.
Again, a definition of ownership should have been in the OGL. It's not there for PI (though there seems to be an implied definition for OGC).
<<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.>>
I think all words represent concepts, although some are expressly limited concepts.
If one doesn't accept that words are representations of a concept, then one must believe that the license needs reformation because you could otherwise never protect a concept, theme, or pose.
How would you ever PI these things and protect them, if the license wasn't intended to protect the textual _expression_ of concepts, themes, and the artistic representation of poses?
Nobody has answered this question to my satisfaction. I do not have one perspective. I think there are two possible answers:
a) some of the stuff on the PI list is unprotectable and the license needs reformation because part of it cannot be enforced
b) all the stuff on the PI list is protectable, and thus it protects the abstract or concrete representations of themes, poses, and concepts.
I don't strongly hold to A or B. But I think that if you read the license in such a way as to give meaning to each clause (and to avoid reformation) then you would lean toward B. If you think that those items were included and are wholly impossible to define "ownership" for (and hence impossible to protect), then you lean toward A.
<<
This can be better done by word association. I say, "d20." What do you
think of?
>>
The first thing I think of is a vision of a twenty-sided die. In context I might think of "d20 System", the WotC trademark.
In either case, the word is the linguistic representation of a metaphorical concept, and the metaphor is designed to draw up the image of something in the real world or in our imagination. Words are conceptual metaphors for elements of reality.
<<
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), >>
This is an interesting point of view. But it raises the question as to how many words constitute "language". A sentence? A phrase? Certainly it doesn't say "a language" (e.g., the entire English language).
So, I won't say that your point is entirely wrong, but I say only that it is a perspective that raises as many questions as it answers.
<<
Language, to me, means copyrightable material - which is by
definition longer than a single word.>>
Would a public domain work be language? If you mean "length sufficient to be copyrighted were it copyrightable material", then I get what your perspective is.
<<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.
>>
An interesting point. In a work that had only original material, they might be able to lock down words like those. But since they will automatically have at least one other document in their Section 15 beyond their own and those words will exist there, they probably can't PI them.
It is unclear whether, when I label a chapter as PI, I am declaring each word in the chapter as PI or the chapter as a unit as PI. If I referenced the "chapter" being "PI" then I think it would apply to the unit as a whole. If I said "all the words used in the chapter are PI" then I'm intending on locking down the words.
<<
Again, to me, "language" is not "any word you pick" but "a specific _set_ of
words used to convey a concept." >>
I won't dismiss this contention. You contend, effectively that words are "elements of language" but "are not, by themselves language". Again, I think the contention is an interesting one, but it raises as many questions as it answers. When do words become "language"?
<<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"
>>
Sure, _provided_ (and here's where the real question is), that you are the owner and can establish the PI. Unfortunately the OGL gives us no specifications for determining ownership of concepts, themes, and poses.
If "ownership" can be unambiguously defined, then it's likely that these other debates will be unimportant -- they will be subsumed by larger answers.
<<
All pronouns 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. >>
Sure I can. I just won't be including your work in my Section 15 when I do.
<<That's why I think you need to re-think your position
on whether or not "ownership" or "prior art enhancements" are required or not.>>
First, I did not claim that ownership is not required. Instead I said that it was, but the OGL provides us not a drop of insight as to how one outright owns a theme, a concept, or a pose.
Re: "prior art" -- that should have been a requirement for PI. It wasn't listed. It was listed as a requirement for OGC.
I think the license needs reformation, personally.
<<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)>>
No, again, this assume that if you PI something that nobody on the planet can use anything you have PI'd, even if they don't Section 15 you. I disagree. If you PI the monster name "Gnorp" and so do I, each referring to different monsters, then I can use my creature name without your permission and vice versa. I think PI declarations are only binding against people who Section 15 you. Your mileage may vary.
Lee
