<<It is probably useful to remind ourselves that the OGL does in fact have a
specific definition for "Use" (as opposed to "use") - 1g - "Use", "Used" or
"Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and
otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content.
The slight limitation inherent in the definition, with those final four
words ("of Open Game Content"), I think does not prohibit us from assuming
that the same definition of (capitalized) "Use" applies to Product Identity.
>>
Actually, it might. One poster on RPG.NET thought the phrase "you may not Use Product Identity" was a big lot of nothing, since "Use" was redefined specifically to apply to OGC, and OGC excludes PI.
We might choose to read a parallel definition, but that seems to frustrate the point of redefining "Use" in the first place. I think that's a hole in the license that could be better clarified.
<<I have to think that is what Ryan is referring to when he talks about
"alternately sourcing" something... in other words, PIing "Thor" doesn't
protect "Thor" in its entirety - it merely protects "your Thor," though
nothing can prevent someone from creating "their Thor" even if they cite
your work... because they didn't copy, edit, format, translate, or create a
Derivative of "your Thor" (which is protected as part of a Copyrighted Work
that, as PI, is not Open Game Content licensed for Use under the OGL).
>>
The problem I have with this is that PI requires ownership. Other than via trademark you can't own a name in isolation normally. It is owned in tandem with something else. When people OGC 99.9% of a spell and then PI a spell's name, then one wonders whether they can actually establish some ownership of the remaining item they are trying to PI.
<<
It's because of that capitalized "U" in "Use" that I think the OGL does in
my view support the reading of "white-out" and not of "forbidden terms" with
respect to Section 7. If the "Use" were a lower-case "use," or better yet,
if the phrase read, "You agree not to use any term designated by another as
Product Identity," then I would be more inclined to entertain a "forbidden
terms" list.
>>
I'll look the OGL over in light of your reading and get back to you with comments when I have time.
<<I hope that made sense. With the reminder that "Use" has a meaning specific
to the OGL that is *narrower* than "use," Section 7 seems much clearer.
>>
Keep in mind that "Use" has no meaning re: PI at all in the OGL in spite of the fact that there's a critical sentence that contains that language. I think in that light that "Use" might either be read as a typo ("use", not "Use") OR the license needs reformation to create a PI-specific definition of "Use".
Lee
