> In a message dated 8/24/2005 10:09:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Nobody is talking about licensing stuff from themselves. They clearly > don't need the OGL for that.
That's not what I'm saying > Woodelf said that there are OGL'd things in some magazines and that if > you look at their concept of bundling it would seem that it would make > their whole magazine OGL covered (which raises tons of questions). > > I can't remember if the M&M preview was just in Game Trade Magazine or > also Dragon. But Woodelf says he's seen OGL covered stuff in WotC > magazines. > > If we can find any example of even ONE OGL-covered thing in a WotC > magazine where the whole magazine isn't treated as a covered work it > sort of makes their FAQ clearly wrong. I think it's wrong even without > an example. My point is that their FAQ is written for third-party publishers and clearly not themselves. Again, not being a lawyer, I can still assume that there are legal workarounds that don't apply to WotC as the originators of the license. The answer to the question in the FAQ could be as simple as ammending it to "if you are not Wizards of the Coast ..." Of course, if any of the list's lawyers care to speak up, it could be far more complex than that but, as I previously stated, it's more plausible that their position as the license's originator gives them more wiggle room than a third-party rather than them having a monthly magazine that's been published improperly for several years without anyone having brought it to their attention. You could, of course, fire an email off to WotC and ask them to clarify the point and their fact, rather than all of us speculating. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
