<<No need to yell at Lee; he's in total agreement with you,>>
With the one caveat that by my reading strange things can be afoot regarding PI restrictions if the non-OGC, non-PI stuff is outside the scope of the license mostly. But you addressed that later, Spike.
<< but the two
of you are using different terminology.
>>
Thank you, sir. I think people feel that my argument somehow jeopardizes everyone in the industry. I think if anything, I am arguing for a nuanced view of common practice with the recognition that PI, etc. may not be as safe as one would think if OGL covered stuff and non-OGL covered stuff can be sandwiched side-by-side in a single publication.
While a given judge may be a bit wacky about things, I suspect strongly that if the industry standard for determining what a covered work is was stated as, "everything marked as OGC plus everything marked as PI, provided that the sum of these two would qualify as a work under the meaning of U.S. Copyright law and the OGL," then most judges are going to let that slide even if it's not specifically stated (since the license doesn't require you to clearly specify what your covered work is, oddly enough, just the component parts).
<<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.
>
Spot on. That's exactly what I'm arguing. Either I'm explaining this poorly or the point I'm making is too nuanced for easy explanation via an email list.
Thank you, Spike.
My point holds weight in arguments regarding PI'ing rules and other gray areas. Consider that Ryan has noted that he would probably slap rules that he wanted some protection for in a non-OGC, non-PI chapter. If you can do that, and if I'm right about that chapter being outside the scope of the license, then anything that isn't trademarked, copyrighted, or patented is pretty much free game to use in such a chapter, provided that you realize you are using it outside of the OGL's established safe harbor.
This affects not only rules, but all manner of bizarre things, including opening the door to certain compatibility & co-adaptability statements if the thing you are claiming compatibility with is not a trademark, but is merely a book title.
Similarly, external trademark licenses scoped to the OGL covered work may be sorely lacking in teeth in many instances.
I haven't read the d20 STL in a LONG TIME, so I don't know what it says or doesn't say. I imagine it can be reformed on a whim. However, realize that unless it provides otherwise, you could do things like have certain gaming products with d20 licensed rules, that, through one machination or another, have character creation and experience rules put in one place or another (distributed separately or things separated into sub-works, etc.).
I'm just noting that the anomaly may allow for certain weird events and/or mischief, more than one might otherwise imagine.
However, this interpretation also makes it much easier to use clipart from clipart.com or some other source that has a license for use, but which has not been declared as PI by the vendor. The art just sits entirely outside the scope of the OGL in these instances.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
