----- Original Message ----- From: "woodelf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How is a PIed name with reuse any better at this than a > freely-reusable OGCed name? I agree that accurate attribution of > reused content is great for the consumer *and* the original producer, > but i don't see how the PIed name helps the matter. Yes, with an > OGCed name, they can just change it. Well, they can give a spell a > new name even if the name is PIed, too. IF a publisher wants to have credit then they don't need to PI vital parts of their OGC in order to FORCE people to credit them. They could instead "invite" people to credit their book as the source of the OGC in the text of the work (something that is done in the front of Relics & Rituals). This then overrides the OGL restriction on mentioning compatibility and allows people to write. This OGC comes from Relics & Rituals as a footnote on the page that they use any content. The problem I have with PI licences is that they may be "easy to use" for the person who reuses the content, but what are we going to do in ten years time if some of these books are out of print. You then potentially have the following problem: * A 2014 OGL publication has PI licences from 10 products, five of which are out of print. * You want to reuse 1 spell, that you know is OGC but because of those 10 licences you will need to track down all ten of those books to find out if you have to print any of those PI licences to use the spell. If someone wanted to PI the term Kryptonite Dagger for a Superman d20 product I would probably support that, because we all know that Kryptonite is part of the ethos of Superman. But when someone wants to PI a Shadow Weapon, that is a bit nuts. IF showing the OGC with PI removed to someone and having them say that should be called "Shadow Weapon" is not on then how about the alternative: How about publishing the OGC with [PI removed] in it on the website. What happens then when EVERYONE else copies the OGC and calls the spell "Shadow Weapon"? They haven't seen the original source so are not in breach of copyright. What can the original publisher do? And before anyone tells me that this would be illegal under the terms of the OGL etc etc can I just point out that if you are reading this on a PC then you are probably using one where someone used EXACTLY the same technique to "legally steal" the BIOS chip from IBM. This was done by using one programmer document what the chip did and then passing the information to an other programmer (who never met the first) and saying "give me a chip that does this". So why can't the guy email the spell to someone who hasn't read the book (It shouldn't be his wife as some pedantic lawyer could say that they discussed things over coffee or she glanced over his shoulder) and have them come up with an independent name. IF the spell is a really obvious spell then INEVITABLY there really can only be ONE name for it. If I make a spell for creating water ANYONE in their right mind will want to call it: Create Water. Against the PI licences I have to say that ALL OGC should be capable of standing alone. If the thing doesn't actually work without the PI then it is clearly of no use to anyone. However on a more positive note I WOULD like to see PI licences used for something else. To allow people to use parts of a setting that normally would not be available under the OGL. Imagine for a second that I have published a hypothetical d20 game where the players are symbiant creatures that take over the minds of other creatures. I don't know if anyone has done anything like this but lets imagine that they haven't. Characters might use telepathic power to control their hosts and then gain the Strength, Dexterity and Charisma of the host while keeping the more mental attributes. I might make all the new magical items, spells, skills and feats that don't involve body possession OGC (including the names) but retain all the stuff that has not been done before as PI. The OGC wouldn't be crippled and anyone that liked a bit of OGC could just type it in and use it without having to uncripple it, however as I had made useful sections of my book PI I would be able to licence out a "PI SRD" with a separate licence that meant people would have to either add "Requires the use of the Body Snatchers Handbook by David Shepheard" or even stick a logo on the book like the d20 System logo. I believe that as this content was not actually OGC released under the terms of the OGL that I might not have to add an OGL to the PI bits. (However, I'm sure someone will tell me if I am wrong.) Because this would all be separate to the uncrippled content I would have the best of both worlds. People that wanted to use my system would HAVE to credit me.as there wouldn't be any OGC remaining if they removed the PI bits. However people that wanted to use my generic items would not be bitching about how my OGC/PI definition sucked as there would still be stuff for them to use. David Shepheard _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
