On Fri, 9 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 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:

snipped.  The question is whether or not copyright notices can be
collapsed.  The response seems to be more about the Permission Agreement
and doesn't really speak to the question in my opinion.

The OGL requires you use the exact text of the copyright notice of all the
works you borrow/derive from.  It's generally accepted that you needn't do
multiples of the same - since technically even without including the
duplicates you are include exact text of each copyright notice.  It's just
that some items, most likely the SRD notice, are counting for more than
one item you've borrowed from.

Now as for the part of the response about addendums.  First, the copyright
notice only needs to be included in material published under the OGL.  So
if you are merely contributing to a product, you should accurately list
all the copyright notices of products you've borrowed/derived from and
then the editor of the product should do the work of removing any multiple
notices that result from multiple submissions relying on the same sources.

The one comment I really didn't understand was this:

>                                       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."

This is completely wrong.  First off there is no errata for the SRD.  Nor
should there ever be one.  If/when errata are discovered, Wizards should
simply correct the SRD.  That's the advantage of the official SRD being an
online document.  If an errata sheet were published under the OGL, it
would need to list the SRD in section 15 (since the errata is clearly
derivative of the SRD) and anyone using the errata would then need to list
both the errata and the SRD in their section 15.

But if you're just submitting things to be published by someone else,
you're not actually publishing under the OGL yourself.  You need to
provide the publisher with all the information to comply with the OGL, but
you really don't have to worry completely about form.  So a submitter
could combine the copyright notice information, but the actual publisher
needs to make sure they are in compliance with the OGL by including the
exact text of any OGC that is being copied, modified or distributed as
well as updating the notice to include the title, date & copyright holder
of any new OGC contributed.

alec
(the guy with a law degree who isn't an attorney)


_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l

Reply via email to