<<This definition by Lee, I think is fairly complete in defining that such a
thing exists. The closed content is simply the stuff that is not part of
the "defined/covered work" -- which may or may not be different from what
the US Copyright office usually defines as a "Work."
>>
I assume it must be similar if not the same, since the license specifically includes the definition of derivative work as it is known under copyright law, and that can only readily be defined in the context of a "work" as defined under copyright law.
The third type of content is OUTSIDE the covered work, not INSIDE the covered work. Can a book contain 3 types of stuff: plain copyrighted, OGC, and PI? Sure. Will that book be "the covered work"? No. Some portion of the book (which itself could be defined as a stand-alone work) would be the covered work in that case, and the third type of content would be outside the scope of the license.
If you accept that reading, some extremely bizarre things can happen to some of the restrictions, prohibitions, etc. of the OGL _and_ the d20 STL.
I haven't checked the revised version of the STL (post Erotic Fantasy), but if memory serves, in the older version if you had a d20 logo covering an entire magazine, you couldn't review any WotC product (without specific permission) other than the core books. Why? Because it prevented you from referring to most WotC trademarks in the covered work.
And, while I didn't check the front cover of Dragon, I kept seeing M&M ads and other stuff that were OGL covered while the magazine itself didn't seem to be OGL covered.
So, I'm not saying there is no "plain copyrighted content", only that it doesn't seem to exist INSIDE anything defined as a covered work. That's sort of a nuanced point, but if you stare at the OGL and maybe other trademark licenses you'll see all sorts of weird things pop up that you didn't think about before once you realize that an OGL covered work might be able to float around inside another compiled work where the compilation as a whole might not be OGL covered.
<<It's my belief that the OGL clearly defines that a "covered work"
constitutes what has been indicated as OGC/PI and nothing more.
>>
Pretty much. That's what I've argued (or tried to argue, perhaps doing so ineptly).
The only addition I'd make to your observation, is that the OGC + PI must equal something that is definitively a work. I'm not certain, therefore, how pleased a court would be at someone's attempts to try to claim that the fourth word on line 3 is not a part of the covered work.
Which is why, although I'm not convinced of it, I strongly favor the notion that a work must be a work unto itself, and that the stuff you excise from it (if it appears in what is nominally a compiled form) may also need to be able to constitute independent works.
<<So when you take a book, and declare all stat blocks as OGC, and all names
as PI, you have essentially created a definition of the "covered work" -- a
new, slightly different term of the art, defined by the OGL itself.
>>
Except that "work" may have to be compatible with definitions of "work" in copyright law, since the definition of "derivative material" explicitly summons up the usages of "translations" and "derivative works" in the context of "copyright law", which themselves, I would infer, have to be defined in terms of "works" also defined under "copyright law".
<<The "Work" as defined by US Copyright now contains 3 types of content, OGC,
PI, and stuff not covered by the OGL (ie, closed content).
The "covered work" as defined by the OGL consists solely of the OGC &PI
defined above (stats and names) and is completely mute on the remaining
text, art, etc.
>>
I'd say that works can contain other works. The enclosing work can contain sub-works (a stand-alone work within the enclosing work). The enclosing work is not covered, but contains a sub-work that is. That sub-work contains only OGC and PI.
<<Its my personal belief that is essentially describes what most publisher
believe, if however in a much more complicated manor. >>
The distinction is, that once you realize that the enclosing work isn't necessarily a work covered by the license, the uncovered sections may not be bound by all the terms of the license. Hmmm...
<< Additionally, I don't
think it's necessary to actually indicate what exactly the "covered work"
is, because IMHO it is defined quite clearly as whatever has been marked as
OGC/PI.
>>
I might buy that. I can see certain advantages in a compiled work, like a magazine into explicitly defining what the covered work is and is not. But you are probably right that it can be inferred, and the license requires you only to define what is OGC and PI. OGC + PI = covered work. And it is not explicitly required that you clearly designate the covered work, even if there are some advantages to doing so.
<<
Just another 2cents into the penny jar,
Mike C.
>>
I think you've captured the bulk of my claims, and made a few of your own. Interesting read. I think you've added well more than 2 cents in my opinion.
Regards,
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
