On Monday, April 12, 2004 6:07 AM woodelf wrote: > Have we ever actually definitively answered the question of what > constitutes "a work" for purposes of the WotC OGL? While it of > course makes more sense for it to be defined as you say, so that > aggregate works like magazines don't have to abide by the license > restrictions /in toto/, is there any evidence of this in the > license itself? Or any evidence against it?
Well, I guess "work" is defined differently in different jurisdictions. A full proper definition would fill several pages of text, so let me give you a few examples of what IMO constitutes a work: * A role-playing game book * A role-playing game rule description * A spell * A monster Basically anything which could be said to stand by it self is a work. A sub-rule of a game rule is not a work because it is dependant upon its "parent" for making sense. Since the OGL does not provide any definition of the term "work" we are stuck with the (varying) definitions of our respective copyright laws. So as far as I'm concerned a collective work (such as a magazine) would not be "tainted" by OGL of it contained one or more works which were licensed under OGL. /Peter _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
