<<The way you were talking in earlier emails you were speaking as though a typical ad required the OGL’s inclusion.>>
No, in fact I wasn't speaking that way. I said NOTHING about a typical ad. I said that there were some advertising materials historically that have used the OGL and then I referred to M&M.
Also, I find it really hard to say that this isn't an extended ad. If you read the first page, it's basically an ad. If that had appeared by itself, it definitely would have been classified as an ad. You are, at this point, arguing semantics and utterly missing the point. If an OGL covered ad, preview, or article appears in a magazine, then according to WotC (but not according to me) the entire encompassing unit of distribution (boxed set, magazine, etc.) must be OGL covered, putting WotC in breach of their own license every time they publish anything like that without making declarations for the entire encompassing unit (like a magazine).
<< This is something entirely different. I still don’t know if this would count in the way
you’re representing it, though, because it’s still not a complete presentation that is operational as a commercial product. It doesn’t, for example, list the preview in Section 15, nor is there a declaration of OGC and PI (that I saw.) It’s entirely non-functional.>>
Um, yes, it DOES list the preview in Section 15.
Right from their Section 15:
"Mutants & Masterminds Preview, Copyright 2002, Green Ronin Publishing."
And as to not listing OGC and PI, that just make it the grossest possible example of why WotC is foolish to claim what they do. The license says that inside a covered work, anything that's not PI is OGC (right in the definition of OGC -- OGC is any "covered work" except the parts that are PI'd). Now you can have a multi-part work (like a book, magazine, etc.) where not all of it is covered by the OGL, according to my reading of the phrase "covered work". However, according to WotC's reading of that phrase, their entire magazine would be a covered work without an OGC or PI definition.
Now, depending on how a judge rules (if he followed WotC's logic), he'd either say:
A) WotC failed to declare OGC and PI for their magazine and breached the license;
and/or
B) he'd say that since there is no PI, then 100% of the magazine is OGC (since the definition of OGC says any work covered by the license, except the parts that are PI, are OGC), including WotC's trademarks, etc.
Again, I think this appeared in Dragon. I'm positive it appeared in other magazines, since I used to own a copy of a magazine (I think Game Trade Magazine or Dragon) with this preview. I think it appeared in both magazines, but Chris Pramas could probably tell us best.
Also, as Woodelf has noted, other WotC 'zines (according to him) have definitely had OGL'd articles.
All that is required to backup Woodelf's point is that one find ANY OGL covered article, promo, ad, etc. in a WotC magazine to bring their own FAQ into question.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
