On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Neal Rogers wrote:
> --- Kal Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My point so many months ago can be illustrated by
[snip]
> One question. If someone produces an OGL product that
> includes a 'new' creature called a chartreuse dragon
> and claims it as PI, _nobody else_ can use it, ever,
> even if their idea of a chartreuse dragon is something
> completely different? If this is so, sounds to me
Let's say "person A" produces "product A" under the OGL that
includes a new creature called "Chartreuse Dragon" and claimed
it as PI. "Person B" wants to produce "product B" under the
OGL that includes a different creature called "Chartreuse Dragon."
Person B can choose to either
1) Not cite person A and thus be barred from using ALL open content
in product A, even stuff marked as open and derived from something
person B opened up at an earlier time.
2) Cite person A and thus be in extremely shaky ground with regards
to the OGL. I won't immediately conclude it is a violation because
Ryan mentioned something about "clearly not an enhancement over the
prior art".
Either way, person A got what they essentially wanted, to take
advantage of open gaming and still produce a 100% closed product.
They even get to tell people, hey look we have lots of open content
in our products. We just want to make liberal use of PI...
> like a really unscrupulous person could come out with
> a supplement that gobbles up a whole bunch of
> permutations of names just to keep anyone else from
> using them. Did I misunderstand how PI works?
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
