----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] Final Text of Approved Open Gaming License
> > kevin kenan
> >
> > If a spell, monster, name, etc. appears in a section designated as
> > OGC, but also appears in the list of PI, then it is closed.
>
> I don't agree with this analysis. This is a simple breach because
> the material is doubly-marked.
The intent of PI (as I understand it) is to allow "doubly-marked"
items. By declaring an item as PI, you can freely mix it in with
Open Game Content yet rest assured that the item will remain closed.
> In order to be PI, it must be something described in 1e and it must
> be clearly marked as such. Items which are not similar to those
> described in 1e may not be PI.
If an item is a game rule, I can't mark it as PI, otherwise I think it
can be marked as PI. I think we're describing basically the same sets
of information.
> Items which ARE similar to those described in 1e MAY be OGC if
> clearly marked, or PI if clearly marked, but the license no longer
> has a 'default state' for such material.
Sure it does. It doesn't matter whether it fits 1e or not. Something
is OGC *only* if it is marked as OGC. If you have a rule (something
that fits 1d) that is not marked as OGC then you are in violation of
the license and you must mark that item as OGC or lose the right to
use the license.
> All items similar to those described in the first part of 1(d) ARE
> OGC whether specifically marked or not,
We disagree on this point, but I believe we agree on the general
point: all material which fits 1d must be marked as OGC.
Here is a thought experiment. What happens if material which fits 1d
is not marked as open? Clearly the work is in violation of the terms
of the license, and if the breach is not corrected the work must cease
using all OGC. At that point, though, what material can the open
gaming community use from that work?
My answer is that we can use any of the material that was correctly
marked as OGC but we can't use anything else even if it should have
been marked as OGC. Consider the case of designers who have
intellectual property that they honestly believe is not covered by 1d,
but then after they release the material they realize that it is
covered. Have they just lost their intellectual property? I don't
think so. Since they didn't explicitly mark it as OGC the material is
not open. They can remove all OGC from their game, invent new
mechanics and release a game which has zero OGC and still uses all of
the material that wasn't marked as OGC in the original version.
> and any other content MAY be OGC if it is marked as OGC and not
> specifically marked as PI. There is no provision for double-marked
> material.
If WotC has marked something as PI, you may not use it no matter where
it appears in WotC's material, even if it appears in a section marked
as OGC.
> "Open Game Content" from 1(d):
>
> means game mechanic <which> does not embody the Product Identity
> -AND-
> any work covered by this License ... but specifically excludes
> Product Identity
The quote above means only that PI is not considered OGC.
> Combined with:
>
> "Product Identity" from 1(e):
>
> means product <and is> clearly identified as Product identity
> -AND-
> specifically excludes the Open Game Content
The quote above means that you must clearly identify everything you
want considered as product identity, but you can not identify game
rules as product identity.
> Means:
>
> All material listed in 1e must be clearly marked as either PI or
> OGC. Material described in 1d is OGC whether marked or not, but may
> not be PI. Failure to do either of these is a breach.
Not that I can see.
-kenan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
