This discussion is really fascinating. I too was under the mistaken impression that PI represented something that was taboo to include in my derived work, no matter where I got it from. Sort of like the fictional agreement Lee suggested. I see it's nothing like that. Essentially I'm required to consider the PI bits to be transparent. For me they don't exist in the work I derive from - they have total concealment. If I DO include content in my derived work that is identical to any declared PI in the work I derive from, I need to be able to point to another source, outside of the work I've derived from. Is that the gist of it, Ryan? /Mikael, Sweden
From: Ryan S. Dancey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2003-07-23 22:12
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 12:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why? If ownership is not at issue (the only restriction on PI other
> than that it be on the laundry list is that it be "owned" somehow) I
> don't know why.
You seem insistent on using this term "ownership" for some reason. It
is really not germane to this conversation. Two parties can agree to
all sorts of mutual terms regarding things that are not "owned" by
either. "Ownership" of those things is not required.
The OGL licenses just one thing that is "owned" by anybody: The
copyright rights in Open Game Content. All the other terms in the
license are not tied to "ownership", they are tied to a mutually agreed
framework of behavior liked to that copyright license.
> I see no reason why that agreement would not be binding (if combed
> through to clean up the language and add additional, needed
> information).
So what? Your made up contract isn't the OGL. Debating its merits or
enforceability is meaningless.
> I don't see specifications for PI that exist that clarify this matter.
That's because you're being obtuse.
I can't tell if you really believe what you're writing or if you're just
tossing hand grenades to watch the explosions. In either case, you have
two choices: Use the license, or don't.
I doubt that it will be reformed now, or ever. Debating the merits of a
reformation may be interesting, but it is probably pointless.
> I think reformation would be required to answer the question of
> ownership unambiguously.
You're just wrong. You can continue to debate this one-sided argument
all day if you'd like, but you're simply incorrect on the merits of your
whole theory.
> Why is the OGL not a contract of that construction?
Because, and this is the point you keep missing: IT DOESN'T ENCOMPASS
ANYTHING EXCEPT THE WORK LICENSED. The OGL doesn't say anything about
"all use of any content identified in this work as Product Identity from
any source".
"Product Identity" is scoped to the work licensed. If the same content
comes from some other source, that other source is >not< Product
Identity, even if it is exactly the same content.
Anything that comes in from beyond the scope of the licensed work is
handled solely by standard copyright and trademark laws. Period.
> And what in the OGL demands that PI be an enhancment over the prior
> art?
NOTHING DOES, LEE.
That's the difference (see my previous message) between "PI that is
invalid" and "PI that has no value". You can make valueless PI
declarations all day long. The act of doing so doesn't make them any
more valuable. They're valid - but valueless.
Ryan
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
<<winmail.dat>>
