<<Which seems inoccuous enough. But now we're back
to OGC being the entire work save PI. So why do
we need to define what OGC is (the whole first
part of 1(d)) if it's the entirety of the work
that isn't PI?
>>
I presumed solely for clarity. Also, if you check out my rather lengthy example of a compiled work involving multiple people's pictures and text, it becomes clear that it's useful to mark the portions of the covered work which are OGC and PI, in part to note what is and is not the covered work.
If the text of an article in a magazine is the covered work and contains my trademark, but the art surrounding the article as rest of the magazine is not a covered work, then the OGC and PI declarations will make it clear that the artwork surrounding my text is not covered at all, and neither is the rest of the magazine. Within my covered sub-work in the magazine, X, Y, and Z are PI, the rest of my covered work is OGC. And the OGC + PI = entirety of the covered work. Anything not covered as OGC and PI isn't even covered by the license.
<<All that said, i agree that a reasonable reading
of the license, generously interpreting in the
favor of the drafters, seems to say that game
mechanics must be OGC. >>
Except that it doesn't say that. It says that the game mechanics, except where they embody product identity, are OGC.
Now, if WotC released their "Dragon Dice" rules as OGC. Then the phrase "Roll the Dragon Dice" might be interpreted to be OGC of the form "Roll the special dice used for these rules which shall not be named because they are trademarked and patented and I declared them as product identity."
However, PI need not be limited to trademarks. It includes "concepts" and "language" if you can establish ownership over them (presumably through some combination of patent, trademark, and copyright, or some mystical OGL ownership that is unwritten). In that case, you might be able to PI the bulk of a mechanic, and then you'd end up being able to have OGC that specifically excludes your mechanics that you have establish ownership over, but excluding any mechanics that are already open and which you don't own.
<<Of course, if we're
willing to accept the collective wisdom of the
users of the license for other things, i don't
know why we can't do the same here and accept
that non-OGC-derivative game mechanics can be
closed, since the publishers seem to have
definitely come to that conclusion.
>>
And that's a question. Regarding Crooks, it seems like, what can be defined as a "non derivative mechanic" is sort of gray. This is from what I've been told about Crooks, 'cause I don't own the book yet, though I'm considering giving Green Ronin some more $$ at some point and picking it up.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
