Brad, I must be misunderstanding you. Consider the following example.
<example>
The following terms are considered Product Identity:
1. Snakemen
2. Stanky Swamp
All text below this line is Open Game Content.
All Snakemen live in the Stanky Swamp. Their stats are:
Str 8, Dex, 14, ...
</example>
The terms "Snakemen" and "Stanky Swamp" are doubly-marked. In my
understanding of the OGL, though, there is no ambiguity; the terms are
clearly closed since they are identified as PI.
Are you saying that the above example is in violation of the OGL? From
the quotes below, it sounds like you are claiming the above is a violation.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 2:55 PM
Subject: [Open_Gaming] Marking PI and OGC
> > kevin kenan
> >
> > 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.
>
> There is no provision in the license for PI or OGC to take
> precedence over the other, therefore there is no way that
> "doubly-marked" items can be considered to be clearly marked as
> either OGC or PI, as demanded by the license.
>
> [Snipped much discussion]
>
> > 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.
>
> True, but not for the reasons you state. Because the section where
> it was also marked as OGC creates a breach of the license which
> would be carried forward in any sublicense, and thus the material
> was never really OGC.
-kenan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
