On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Kal Lin wrote:
>
> I think we have the exact same conflicting interpretation
> of the OGL as I have with Brad and Roger. (I'm going to
> introduce the notation #-OGL for clause # of the OGL).
>
> Suppose CC PI'd Halfing.
Why suppose? They did.
> They would not be in breach.
>
> Halfling would be OGC since it is not an enhancement over
> the prior art (1d-OGL).
You keep talking as if someone can PI the word Halfling, which is
completely inaccurate. You can PI Halfling as a name of a creature. The
Halfling presented in the Creature Collection could certainly be claimed
to be an enhancement over the prior art.
> You are granted a perpetual license (2-OGL).
>
> You satisfy 7-OGL because you have a license to use the OGC Halfling.
Who is You and what is You trying to do? You has a license to use the OGC
Halfing, which is the one which will be published in the SRD. You can
clearly use the term Halfling to refer to something of your own
creation. You don't have the right to use the description of Halfling
put forth in the Creature Collection.
>
> My interpretation of how 1d-OGL and 2-OGL work can certainly be
> wrong. But I think it is supported by the statement from Ryan,
>
> > Claiming "Product Identity" for the name "Frost Ape" isn't going to get
> you
> > much benefit (since "Frost Ape" is certainly not an enhancement over the
> > prior art, and your claim to Product Identity isn't going to stop anyone
> > from using the name if they want to)..
Ryan says anyone can use such common words as Frost Ape to create their
own Frost Ape, thereby granting little value to anyone really claiming
Frost Ape as PI. But that isn't the same as saying anyone can go and use
the Frost Ape created by someone else who did claim Frost Ape as PI.
alec
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
