> This is false. According to the current draft OGL, "names
> and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, [...]" are
> part of "Product Identity" (defined in point #1) which can never be
> used in any other OGL work (according to point #7). "
I don't think that is correct. Point #1 is simply a definition of what
product identity could be, nothing else. But all "spells" are not product
identity. Point #7 is in reference to trademarks, such as the d20 logo
trademark. I believe an item, such as a spell, must be identified as
"Product Identity" in order to be consider "product identity". Alos,
consider the star wars game WOTC is producing, point #7 protects Star Wars
related trademarks such as "Yoda" or "Star destroyer". Maybe I'm wrong, but
that's the way I see it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lizard
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 4:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Open_Gaming] Clarification needed;important
>
>
> Can someone (Ryan?) please address this issue and give us a clear
> answer, to wit:Can 'product identity' be made 'open' under the OGL?
> (This is a repost from Usenet;since this was posted in a public forum I
> see no great breach of ethics in brining it here)
>
> ====================
> Lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >John Kim wrote:
> >> You suggested that the advantage of the OGL was that there would be
> >> a lot of free material available. In reality, there already is a
> >> huge amount of free material available. In practice anyone can and
> >> does make their house rules and so forth available. I see no
> >> convincing logic that WotC's OGL will increase this.
> >>
> >It will increase the interbreeding and mixing of such material.
> >
> >Suppose, for example, I were to take all the various "Net Spell Books"
> >currently out there, slice the contents apart, and produce a
> >computerized database of player-contributed spells
> [...]
> >Under the OGL, you grant explicit permission for me to do just that. I
> >feel the cumulative effect of turning every fan work into simply one
> >more data point in a library will be greater than simply having the
> >works themselves. You disagree. Time will tell.
>
> This is false. According to the current draft OGL, "names
> and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, [...]" are
> part of "Product Identity" (defined in point #1) which can never be
> used in any other OGL work (according to point #7).
>
> (cf. http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html )
>
> Now, according to you this is purely an oversight by the
> nice people at WotC, and that in a future draft it will be at least
> possible for OGL authors to explicitly make their spells "open".
> Is this really any different than non-OGL authors, though, who can
> explicitly make their material "open", as several authors have done?
> In practice, I would guess that the casual OGL users (like netbook
> contributors) will just copy the license rather than going through
> and explicitly opening parts that are by default "closed".
> ==============================
> -------------
> For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
