Several days ago, I brought up the question about collapsing Section 15 entries. Here is what one of the DnDCC/FANCC (for info on this name change, go here: http://www.dndcommunitycouncil.org/why.asp ) members posited: ===== Which is correct? Must we use Item A, Copyright 2001 by Contributor Blah Item B, Copyright 2001 by Contributor Blah or can we use Items A and B, Copyright 2001 by Contributor Blah I have posted this to the OGL-F boards and had two response (neither of which was Ryan [Dancey]) and both indicated that we needed the two separate entries. Can we collapse them or not?] The following is the text of my reply, but what it really comes down to is "how does the PA work in this regard?" ---------- In some ways, it's "six of one, half a dozen of the other." For sake of simplicity, I would say collapsing is better and is in the correct spirit of the OGL... BUT... If you go by the strictest letter of the OGL, you could argue that you can only do this for things that were actually submitted in the same document, since in theory, our Section 15 must contemplate the section 15 of each individual submission. However, let's look real quick at how the submission process works. It is noted that you need not repeat the same source multiple times (e.g., if I use three sources, all of which must list the SRD, I don't have to list the SRD three times, but instead list it just once in my Section 15). If one assumes that each submission is not a separate work, but an addendum to previously published work (e.g., my submission is added to the work "Stuff Submitted By The Sigil"), then you need not repeat the copyright notice for each item a person submits - just once per person, in the same way that you need not list the SRD three times. Since submitting something to us is best characterized as "adding to the volume of work published under the Permission Agreement" I think we are okay in the letter of the law, too, by the nature of our submissions process. Each submission (after the first) is added to a body of work as part of that body of work and not as a new part. It works in much the same way that errata becomes part of the original single work. You don't need to list (1) SRD and (2) errata for SRD published on <date>. Just the SRD. Note also that the errata does not have to reprint the entire SRD, but rather just says, "add or replace these pieces." Basically, it comes down to the PA system. One PA for all submissions means all submissions are published in the same "document" and released to us under that one PA. If each submission was a separate publication, we would require a separate PA for each and every submission. I would wait for an official answer, but my guess is that it's within the spirit of the OGL and within the letter of the law as far as our submissions process goes to collapse it, but the strictest "letter of the law" interpretation may be that we have an individual entry for each one unless they were submitted together. Again, if we treat our submissions as "addendums" to the person's existing body of work, we can combine. If each submission is its own separate publication, we have to do everything one line at a time. My advice: Combine them for now - if we get a notice from WotC's legal beagles, we can always expand them back out, but I think we are well within the strictures OGL to do the collapse in this manner, so long as we see submissions as "adding to a body of work" instead of "each submission being its own publication". And I think, given that we require only one PA for *all* submissions, present and future, that this (i.e., adding to an existing work with each submission instead of creating a new one) is the correct interpretation. If we required a PA for each entry, each submission would be its own publication. Disclaimer: IANAL. --The Sigil P.S. - The more I see of the OGL process and the potential headaches, the more I am amazed at the power and flexibility of the PA system we have in place. People can complain that it's a pain in the neck to send the thing in (I don't know why, though, I process EVERY one people send in), but time and again it has shown its durability and that it is one of the few documents that really allows great freedom to both the individual contributor and the DnDCC/FaNCC teams. This document is probably the single-most important and under-appreciated document this organization has produced (more important than the Netbooks).
===== So, what do people think of his comments? BTW, I got his permission to forward his comments to this group to, hopefully, get some discussion going Paul W. King _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
