The definition of OGC includes two things: Game mechanics and the 'covered
work'... game mechanics aren't listed in the phrase that mentions the covered work.
Right. I have looked at it. But I invite you to look at it again yourself. The only way OGC can be:
* the game mechanics minus any PI embodied by the mechanics
* everything that you mark as OGC
* the covered work minus any PI
Is for the entirety of the covered work minus any PI to be OGC, and for you to mark the parts of the covered work that aren't PI as OGC. That would then allow all three things to be true if you mark your OGC appropriately.
Mechanics elsewhere in the parts of a compilation not covered by the OGL would not be addressed in the slightest by the license, since those parts of the work would not be covered.
Except for marketing and advertising, the language of the license doesn't seem to generally apply to works that are not covered directly by the license.
So, I'm not sure what "othaherzog's" point is here, but it seems clear to me that only if the work covered by the license is 100% OGC and PI can all parts of the definition of OGC be true.
If somebody can logically dissuade me of this belief, I'm open to the notion that I'm wrong. I'm just not being persuaded by claims that I'm wrong unless those claims are backed with a logical argument tied to the language of the license.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
