On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 13:48, Mikael wrote: > 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.
You need to be careful. It is possible that the 3rd party product you're pointing at is illegally using that content in the first place. The test I would use is: 1) Does my "other source" predate the publication of the work containing the Product Identity clause identifying the material in question? 2) Do I reasonably believe that no other work from the source making the Product Identity claim predates the publication of my "other source"? If you satisfy yourself that both of these things are true, you're probably on safe ground to ignore the PI declaration. Where matters will get tricky is when the PI appearance and your "other source" appearance are chronologically close to each other. Because if someone does make a PI claim against you, you're going to have to be able to show that your work was based on content untainted by any direct descendant connection to that PI. I >don't< see this as a "loophole" to get around a reasonable PI declaration for something that really is an enhancement over the prior art. Instead, I see it as a reasonable check on the ability of a publisher to "contaminate" the shared pool of OGC with Product Identity that is >not< an enhancement over the prior art. So the word to the wise is: If you think the PI declaration is reasonable, you're better off staying away from that content and not testing the safe harbor. Ryan _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
