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.
They would not be in breach.
Halfling would be OGC since it is not an enhancement over
the prior art (1d-OGL).
You are granted a perpetual license (2-OGL).
You satisfy 7-OGL because you have a license to use the OGC Halfling.
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)..
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Alec A. Burkhardt wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Kal Lin wrote:
>
> > My point is they cannot prevent someone from using a public
> > domain name to refer to a piece of open game content.
>
> This is starting to sound like the completely ridiculous arguments some
> once made about trademarking words. If a name is PIed, it is only PIed in
> relation to the specific description that goes along with that name in the
> specific product. That's why the definition of PI says "names of ..."
> rather than just names. So if someone PIs King Arthur, you can't use the
> name King Arthur to refer to their depiction of King Arthur. But they
> can't use their PI claim to prevent you from refering to King Arthur of
> legend and creating your own stats and descriptions of him. If their
> description appears to be taken verbatim from public domain, you still
> can't use their description even though they have breached the license by
> claiming something as their own which wasn't. You can go back to the
> original source and use the description without ever having to refer to
> the work that was in breach of the license. At that point, you have
> completely avoided their claim of the name King Arthur as PI.
>
> For an example, the Creature Collection has PIed the name Halfling (since
> all names of creatures in the book are PI). This refers to their
> modifications to Halflings for the Scarred Lands setting. Obviously they
> can't be claiming no one else can use the name Halfling. What they are
> saying is no one else can use the name Halfling to refer to the creature
> called Halfling in the Creature Collection, even though you can take the
> stat block thru combat information (if I remember correctly on what was
> designated open) and use it as OGC. You'd need to rename the creatures as
> well as come up with new background descriptions if you want to use stuff
> from the Creature Collection in published material. But you can certainly
> use the name Halfling to refer to something other than what is in the
> Creature Collection; for example as used in the SRD (once the Races
> section is officially opened).
>
> alec
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ogf-l mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
>
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
