> John Ughrin
>
> Ummm...I know I would under *normal* copyright protection, but
> the PI rules
> don't make any claims to normalcy or fair use clauses. Which is part of my
> problem here. I do not agree that the OGL protect *only* specific
> expressions. I do not see wording to that effect in 1e) or any
> other clause.
> Instead of saying that PI includes all "expressions of <insert list>" or
> similar wording, the PI definition include the very concepts themselves as
> protected material.
PI isn't like a copyright, that's true. The specific wording is the phrase
related to derivative works in 7. A derivative work is a copyright term, so
in order for someone to wrongfully use your PI they must satisfy the
conditions of a derivative work as that term is used in copyright law.
Since ideas themselves do not enjoy copyright protection, they cannot be the
sole basis for a derivative work, and thus someone who uses your concept
(but not your specific expression) has not created a derivative work and
thus has not violated the OGL.
That's why it isn't bad, and why the term 'concept' in 1(d) refers only to a
specific expression of a concept, and not all expressions of that concept.
It is merely a way to allow oddball ideas that don't conform to any of the
other categories to be protected as PI, because anything that isn't PI is
OGC under the OGL.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
