The only place the OGL provides that you can use someone else's PI
is section 15 and it is limited to
what appears in your sources' section
15's . If you cited a work in the body of your product then you
would proabaly be in violation of section 7
if you didn't have permission to use their
PI. Strictly speaking you probably are not in violation of claiming
compatibility but you would be in violation of section 7 by using PI
without permission. The way I read the license I would need two agreements or
one that covered both points in regards to using anothers PI and claiming
compatibility with their work.
In your two examples below I think both
would be found in violation of section 7 for using PI without a separate
agreement. Keep in mind that nothing requires that the agreement be made
public. Although, you would need to make sure you did not release the PI that
you licensed as OGC.
Bryan
-----Original Message-----A colleague of mine had been working on an SRD variant and had actually issued a credit that most of the volume was derived from another source (which he named). This raised the question as to whether most people think credits and references to items in your Section 15 constitute "compatibility" declarations, or whether only a strict, facial declaration of "compatibility" is to be deemed compatible.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 6:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [OGF-L] Compatibility Declarations
In my personal opinion I tend to feel that if you want to make such a declaration, just ask. Most people don't mind credits that help push their products. So I'd tend to play it safe.
Another major vendor just released this as OGC under the d20 STL:
"Although a half-orc can multiclass freely
between half-orc levels and either orc or human levels, he cannot take levels in both orc and human. For more on orc racial levels, see Savage Species from Wizards of the Coast."
Since this work was declared as OGC and since it was under the STL this seems to be a violation of the no WotC trademarks under the STL. It also seems to be a violation of OGC declarations, since everything was declared as OGC without properly designating this stuff as either "non-OGC" or as PI. Lastly (and most related to the post), is this a statement of compatibility? It seems to be an implied one if not an explicit one.
Lee
