<<No, I don't want 100% OGC. I want spell/feat/PrC/etc. names that don't>>
include proper names to be OGC. Big difference.
That's not the way the OGL works. Take a recipe. One may not be copyrightable, but a collection of them _is_. The collection is _not_ public domain by any stretch of the imagination. Since a collection of spell names may be copyrightable as original content, clearly then it should be possible to PI that collection.
Even were the collection not copyrightable, the OGL only demands that the person declaring something as PI be the "owner" of the PI, and yet the PI list includes things which cannot be copyrighted or trademarked normally, but which can, presumably be owned under the OGL. However, the OGL does not define this type of "ownership."
If treated as individual units (one spell name at a time) it is unclear whether ownership can be declared, since there is no standard for comparison nor is there a definition of "owner" in the OGL.
Moreover, even without that link to ownership, the OGL explicitly allows the PI'ing of a spell name as it refers to the spell:
"names and descriptions of ... spells" can be declared as PI.
This was not, in any way, limited to proper names.
By one construction of the OGL, the "forbidden terms" construction, almost anything could be declared as PI if it's on the PI list, because by that construction you are agreeing not to use certain terms in order to use the OGC.
So, there's a variety of different readings which allow for the PI'ing of collections of spell names. Some constructions are more liberal than others, but all point to the allowance for PI'ing collections of spell names.
I do not see at all why this should be controversial.
<<Yes.� If he wants to ensure that he retains credit, then he should not declare
the name as PI.� That way, anyone who wants to trace the OGL back to its
source need only check section 15 of the license... that's how the OGL is
designed.� If he doesn't like the way the OGL is designed, he shouldn't use
it.
>>
I totally disagree. Declaring a name as PI is not likely to prevent someone from tracing a spell. Why? Because most people who want the names are likely to use the free PI license.
Let's say the spell names were not PI... Even having the spell name does NOT make it easy to track down a spell. Take one of the big books of spells that have 20+ sources in Section 15. Unless you own ALL those sources tracking down the spell, even by name, is tough to do with most OGL'd sources. Why? Because of the "no compatibility declarations" and "no using other people's trademarks and/or PI for certain things" provisions of the OGL. To play it safe, most people do not list, on a spell-by-spell basis where they got the spells from. A PI license for spell names can include such permissions.
About the only sources that make things easy to track are potentially the netbooks which have incredibly long Section 15.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
