[I'm not shouting; I'm just using the capitalized term from the OGL as a
reference!]
From: "Brad Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It has been suggested that a description of an author's contribution to a
> work be carried with the copyright notice, so that one can always tell how
a
> previous author's work was used in creating a derived work.
The minimally acceptable notice would be simply:
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Complex Combat Rules, Copyright 2000, Ryan S. Dancey
However, if the notice read:
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Complex Combat Rules, Absorbing Armor System, Copyright 2000, Ryan S. Dancey
Complex Combat Rules, Interesting New Weapons, Copyright 2000, Ryan S.
Dancey
Complex Combat Rules, Critical Hit Tables, Copyright 2000, Ryan S. Dancey
The terms of the OGL require that the notice, in it's entirety be inserted
into any derivative work.
So it would track contributions to the level that anyone wanted to note them
in the COPYRIGHT NOTICE.
> It has further
> been suggested that if that work was used as the source for a new work,
then
> the copyright notice would only need to acknowledge the authors who's work
> was actually used in the latest derivation, rather than all authors who
have
> contributed to all works from which you are deriving. This would mean
that
> authors who contributes to a source work in a manner which is not relevant
> to the new work would not need to be acknowledged, since their work was
not
> a source for derivation.
Nobody should try to parse the derivation chain. Down this path lies
madness (and lawsuits). Who among us can look at a mingled-rights product
and tease out the original authoriship of every line of text? It will cost
virtually nothing for a publisher to include a complete COPYRIGHT NOTICE and
doing so will insulate derivative products from any concerns about the legal
status of the work. Plus, it ensures that the "value" of recognition for
contribution propagates as far and wide as possible.
Ryan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
