So you don't see how they, as the holders of the original copyright, wrote
the license in such a way as to keep their corebooks from being covered by
it? The license specifically restricts us all to the OPENED content in the
SRD instead of referencing the corebooks themselves, whereas the rest of us
use the OGL to point to our products and not our own SRDs. That's a rather
advantageous point to say that their being the drafter of the license had
nothing to do with.
Regards,
Steven Trustrum
President For Life (or until the money runs out)
Misfit Studios
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
416-857-2433
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert A.
Knop Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:19 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 09:11:05AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > And there's nothing at law that says the drafter of a license
> > can ignore it's provisions.
>
> In that case, even Wotc wouldn't be able to publish the PHB as they'd be
> restricted to the material in the SRD and that has since been made OGC by
> third parties.
That's not because they're the drafter of the licence.
It's because they're the copyright hoder of the PHB and SRD material.
Copyright holders *can* multiply licence things. Very different from
licence drafters.
Hell, if licence drafters were able to give themselves special rights, I'd
write me a licence right now that says I get to use everything ever written
for my own nefarious purposes, and nobody can stop me! :)
-Rob
--
--Prof. Robert Knop
Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
