On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Brad Thompson wrote:
> I think you're missing a fundamental point here - the person who comes along
> and writes an arctic adventure with "frost" monsters is only in violation of
> the OGL if they cite the original "frost" work as a source. If they don't
> use that material as a source, there is no violation, and normal copyright
Then ALL open content in the bogus claimed work is closed to
the arctic adventure writer because they can't cite the bogus
claimed work. The bogus producer can use as much open content
as they like and still produce an essentially 100% closed work.
They just need to mark as PI the bits that will most likely be
needed to reuse any of it.
But if the arctic adventure writer emails bogus producer and
satisfies whatever arbitrary conditions bogus producer feels
like imposing then they'll grant a sub license to the PI elements.
Only then will the arctic adventure writer have access to the
open content in the "Frost MM" which may even be based on open
content the arctic writer produced in an earlier work. How would
you feel about asking for permission to use a derivative of something
you opened up at one point?
> law takes over. PI is not a copyright - it is a statement by a licensee
> that "this party of my work isn't OGC so you don't have permission to use it
> under the OGL - find another way to use it if you feel the need".
>
> -Brad
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
