It seems that since the license applies at the level of the work, it slurps up everything as OGC except that which you define as PI.
If this were true, why would you have to declare what is OGC? Only the PI declaration would be necessary.
There are definitely supposed to be 2 types of content OGC and non-OGC in a covered product. Some OGC contains PI as well but that has nothing to do with the distinction here.
>That's a bad declaration as far as I'm concerned. You should define things exclusively. You should say,
> "All text in this work _except_ the stuff defined as PI is OGC. The following is PI: blah, blah." Even that
>definition is, to some degree, insufficient the way most people handle it, if the default assumption is that the
>work is licensed and that the license wants to OGC everything in sight. Why? People rarely remember to
>talk about their formatting. They should declare their formatting as OGC or PI.
Please don't start this argument over again. There is no PI unless the surrounding text is OGC. You do not have to exclude PI from your OGC declaration since the license already does this for you. PI trumps OGC in the license.
Search the archives for the three types of content: 1) Regular copyrighted text 2) OGC 3) PI within OGC
This has been hashed to death and your interpretation is neither new nor accurate.
"2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. "
Notice that the license does not apply to a work. It only applies to the OGC.
Joe
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
