In a message dated Mon, 11 Dec 2000 4:18:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Doug
Meerschaert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< From FrogGod, advocate of he-who-has-really-bad-breath-and-no-AC:
>Then to fall back on what *I* was asking before, if a special case can be
>made for magazines, then a special case could be made for game books. And
>if it can only be made for magazines, then I will be tempted to claim that
>all my supplements are "magazines"...
>
>You can't make special cases without *inviting* abuse.
IANAL, but I believe that the courts recognize a "periodical" as a distinct
form of publication--and the OGL could even re-interate that if necessary.
I agree with Brad; the OGL should be modified to permit periodicals
including OGL material to escape the OGL for the rest of the magazine. This
could be done either by exempting periodicals specifically in a new clause,
or adjusting the definition of "work" to indicate a single article within a
periodicial (and all commentary on that article, to cap abuse.)>>
But nothing prevents me from having "Gaming Adventure Bimonthly" as the alleged
periodical name, each individual adventure as an issue, and a 1/4 page of legalese
that meets the requirements thereof.
They would otherwise look *just like* a regular adventure...and not be subject to the
same requirements as everyone else's books.
-Paul @ Team Frog Studios
Publishers of Crunchy Frog & Nightshift Games
www.teamfrog.com
::in a feisty mood after listening to the Supreme Court hearings today::
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
