woodelf- One day I just want to hear you say, "you know, Clark has thought alot about this and basically has found a way around most problems and I have come to conclude that he is actually genuinely interested in giving away content that he didnt have to give away."
:) Clark --- woodelf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 14:51 -0800 2/17/04, Clark Peterson wrote: > > > As for the generosity of free PI-reuse, and > wanting > >> attribution > > > >That isnt why I PI'd stuff in RR. I PI'd it because > we > >wanted to protect important setting content. If you > >want to see how I handle attribution, when that is > >importnat to me, see how we did Tome of Horrors > where > >we wanted to credit each individual original > author. > > > >So dont set up and knock down the straw man of > >"attribution" when that wasnt the reason behind why > we > >did RR's license. > > i'd actually completely lost track that an RR widget > was the original > source of this discussion, and thought we were only > talking in the > abstract, about the advantages and disadvantages and > results of > PI-with-license for widget names. > > In any case, I didn't mean to construct a strawman. > Maybe i simply > misunderstand your motives for PIing things and then > licensing them, > or maybe it's justa semantic issue and i'm using > the wrong words, so > let me state what i *thought* was the situation: > --Certain names/terms/etc. are valuable to you, as > they are tied to > significant unique creative expression, specifically > the Scarred > Lands setting > --You don't want to unintentionally give those away, > due to error or > a legal re-reading of the WotC OGL and the nature of > open/closed > content, or any other such thing, so you mark those > items as PI, to > make it crystal-clear that others can't reuse them > --You create a bunch of spells with PI elements in > their names. As > per the 2nd point, you don't want to just give them > away, or open up > the PI to arbitrary reuse. > --However, you want people to be able use those > names with those > spells, so you put in an explicit license that boils > down to "you can > use the name of the spell, even though it's not OGC, > but only to > identify that specific spell". [i hope i got that > right, since i > don't have the book in question to double-check.] > > Is that correct? If so, isn't one of the motives for > allowing people > to reuse the your spell names so that the name > sticks with the spell? > And isn't the point of that basically free > advertising for your > setting? Which doesn't work unless they provide some > sort of > association to your works--i.e., roundabout > attribution. If that's > not the case, i guess i don't understand why you'd > give away the > PI-containing names at all (well, and not just make > them OGC--my > conclusion is predicated on you valuing your IP > elements which you > designate as PI, as you've said repeatedly). > > > > Because when you're forced to change the name, > >> you're undermining one > >> of the virtues of open-content development: > credit > >> where credit is > >> due. > > > >That is only one of the "virtues" and nothing stops > >you from crediting the source. That is a lame > >argument. Attribution is as much the issue for the > >re-user as for the original author. > > > >For example, lets say there was "Clark's Cool > Spell" > >and I PI'd the name and the content was OGC. > > > >You could rename it to Karl's Cool Spell and use > the > >same OGC content for it. > > > >Here is where your argument falls apart. According > to > >you, now "attribution" is ruined. > > > >No it isnt. > > > >You could easily put in your legal section: > > > >[Name of Book that has Clark's Cool Spell], section > 15 > >info. > > > >Name of Your product, section 15 info. > > > >Note: Karl's Cool Spell is based on Open Game > Content > >found in [Name of book that has the spell], > originally > >written by Clark Peterson. > > Hmmm...good technique. I guess i was letting the > "you can't > attribute things properly, because of trademark/PI > restrictions" > argument dissuade me from even looking for a way > around the > limitations of attribution, so i hadn't really > thought very hard > about it. Thouh i'm not sure that what you're > suggesting would > always work--see below. > > >So you can still attribute sources if YOU THE > REUSER > >want to do so. > > > >For example, I just did a product where my author > used > >5 or 6 rather obscure internet OGC sources. They > had > >bad section 15 designations. So, though I was > forced > >to use their section 15 by the license, I also > added a > >section called: "OGC in this Book" where I said > "This > >book uses Open Game Content from some unique > sources > >that deserve further designation." Then I went on > to > >list them. > > > >Just because the license requires you to mimic the > >section 15 doesnt mean you cant further elaborate. > > Don't you either need special permission, or violate > the WotC OGL, > given that most company names are trademarks? Or do > you just use the > name of the work, and rely on readers to locate the > product, should > they be interested? Or, for that matter, isn't reuse > of PI, save to > reproduce a Sec.15 entry, forbidden, and don't most > people list their > book titles as PI? That's been my experience, at > least. > > -- > woodelf <*> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/ > > The Laws of Anime > <http://www.abcb.com/laws/index.htm>: > #1 Law of Metaphysical Irregularity > The normal laws of physics do not apply. > _______________________________________________ > Ogf-l mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l ===== http://www.necromancergames.com "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel" _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
