> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of woodelf
> (lists)
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 5:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI creatures
>
>
> from the OGL, section 1:
> >(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the
> >methods, procedures, processes and
> >routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product
> >Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art
> >and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content
> >by the Contributor, and means any work
> >covered by this License, including translations and derivative works
> >under copyright law, but specifically excludes
> >Product Identity.
>
> now, maybe i've misread this, but it sounds to me like Product
> Identity and Open Game Content are, together, inclusive. that is,
> everything in a work is one or the other, so if it's not OGC, it's
> PI.
Obligatory "I am not a lawyer" here. But I believe you have misread this.
This question has been raised here numerous times (so you're not alone); and
after each such raising, the conclusion (supported by Ryan as the intent of
the OGL) is that there are three categories:
1. Open Game Content (OGC), clearly identified and available for reuse under
the OGL.
2. Closed content, separated from the OGC and not available for reuse under
the OGL.
3. Product Identity, not available for reuse under the OGL even if it
happens to appear within OGC.
Note:
> >(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the
> >methods, procedures, processes and
> >routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product
> >Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art
i.e., if new material is an enhancement over prior art, it MUST be OGC,
whether the creator wishes it to be so or not.
> >and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content
> >by the Contributor,
i.e., you may also make OGC anything you have contributed, even if you are
not compelled to do so by the preceding clause.
> >and means any work
> >covered by this License, including translations and derivative works
> >under copyright law, but specifically excludes
> >Product Identity.
This clause is the one that I believe most often leads people to the
incorrect conclusion that there is only OGC or PI. I have trouble with
understanding this clause well myself.
> this is further reinforced by the definition of PI (which could
> be summed up as "everything that isn't game mechanics", if we didn't
> need it in legalese). for that matter, everything i've looked at in
> the stores seems to follow this dichotomy: there's OGC, released by
> the WOGL, and everything else is PI, protected by the WOGL (and, in
> many cases, copyright or trademark laws).
That may very well be a common pattern; but it is not a mandatory pattern.
What IS mandatory is that you must be able to clearly identify what is OGC
and what is not. Further, if something is PI, it must be clearly identified
as such somewhere in the work.
So a creator can adopt and explain a notational convention -- say, "All text
in grey boxes is OGC" -- and then anything not in grey boxes is closed,
regardless of whether it is PI or not.
> furthermore, my reading of the WOGL is that one must release
> game-mechanics stuff (specifically, stuff that's based on game
> mechanics that have already been released) in order to qualify for
> the WOGL, or, rather, that one may not choose not to release material
> that is not PI and still abide by the WOGL. is there a third
> category of material that is not PI and not OGC, which the OGL fails
> to mention?
Yes. Closed content, as above.
Martin L. Shoemaker
Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com
http://www.UMLBootCamp.com
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
