>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I agree there is no effective difference, with the exception that material
>which is specifically mentioned as being under the OGL but which isn't
>clearly marked either way could be defined by a court settlement as being
>either PI or OGC in a dispute. Material which isn't specifically released
>under the OGL would be safer from this.
No, this is where you're wrong. Material that isn't identified as either
OGC or PI isn't; if it *should* have been you're in breach of the OGL, but
that doesn't make the offending parts OGC or PI.
Any part of a work covered by the OGL is covered by the OGL. If you want
something in a product (for example, a magazine) to *not* be covered by the
OGL, you either have to not include the OGL at all, or convince the courts
that your "non-OGL" material is a seperate work.
I'd wager it's easier to just get permission to use the trademarks.
>In some sense, since the OGL does not require the clear marking of PI in
>the
>same manner as OGC (i.e. with a specific clause, even though it is
>mentioned
>in the definitions),
It doesn't? IIRC, OGL v 1.0 has the exact same phrase for PI and
OGC--"clearly identify."
>there might be room for legal arguments that PI need not
>be so clearly marked. If you consider that PI may be declared in documents
>outside of the material covered (as with the d20STL and G), you may find
>wiggle room somehow. What good this would all serve and whether a court
>would see it this way is unknown.
I'd wager that you would be limited to not identifing PI that is clearly
identified in something that a customer is reasonably going to assoicate as
part of the same work. To be save, identify *all* PI you use.
>This sucks of course.
>Basically, no general interest mag is going to be able to exist and cover
>d20
>in what we might think of as a normal manner. That is a loss to the
>industry
>not a gain.
No, not true at all. You can *cover* d20, and use all the trademarks you
want--just as long as you don't agree to the OGL.
For example, Eric Noah's site isn't covered by the OGL, but he mentions
everyone's trademarks as he pleases. He can do that; normal Federal law
covers him, and he didn't give up anything to be bound by the OGL.
DM
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
