On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:24:06 -0400 "Martin L. Shoemaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > << I _NEVER_ said that OGC is everything in a covered product.� I > said it was everything in a�covered product that is not PI. >> > > Has an IP lawyer versed in the OGL told you this? If not, please > consult one before you keep repeating this. PLEASE! Publishers > with money on the line have paid good money to their IP lawyers > and seem to have all reached the conclusion that there are three > kinds of content: OGC, PI, and traditional copyright material. > Your dogged insistence to the contrary may be seriously > misleading people.
No need to yell at Lee; he's in total agreement with you, but the two of you are using different terminology. You say that there are three types of content, OGC, PI, and traditional copyrighted material. He says that there are two types of content *within a covered work,* OGC and PI, but that a product (he likes to use the example of an issue of a magazine, but books and other things would also count) and "a covered work" are not the same thing, and that a product can include material that is outside of the covered work, and which is therefore not OGC or PI, but which is still covered by traditional copyright, trademark, and other IP laws. Your "traditional copyrighted material" is equal to other people's "closed content" is equal to Lee's "material not a part of the covered work and therefore not dealt with in the license except in a few tangential places." Lee's definition and designation is the most accurate, but "closed content" is the most commonly-used term for this third category of material. Spike Y Jones _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
