<<Trying to use PI claims to assert "ownership" on a game
mechanic doesn't make much sense.
>>
Doesn't make sense? Or couldn't reasonably be done with the OGL. I keep staring at the ability to PI "concepts" and "language" and that's such a vast gulf of things you could PI, that it makes me wonder why you couldn't PI rules.
Consider, for example a patented rules set. Could you declare that as PI?
I guess I'm less concerned, Ryan, with the standards for rules, and more concerned with what context "ownership" is defined in, and the scope of things that technically are concepts and are PI.
<<More likely I simply would leave them in a section of the work marked as
neither OGC nor PI, and allow normal IP law to hold sway.
>>
Very reasonable.
Thank you, kindly, sir.
Much obliged. Your opinions are noteworthy on this matter.
Lee Valentine
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
