On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, woodelf (lists) wrote: > >Sorry, you are confusing the OGL with the requirements of the D20STL. > >There is no minimum requirement under the OGL. Of coure if you only mark > >a single word as your OGC there really isn't a point to using the OGL. > >But nothing in the license prevents someone from only having that little > >OGC. (Since the license does not apply to any part of the work which is > >not designated as Open Game Content, you could not have a work with 0 OGC > >and claim it as released under the OGL.) > > what about a work that you wanted to claim ownership over stuff that > PI allows, but traditional IP law doesn't? couldn't you > theoretically release a game under the WOGL, with no designated OGC, > but some designated PI? it's doubtful whether doing so would > actually give you control over any stuff that fell outside of > trademark/copyright/patent, but within PI, but mightn't it be worth a > shot?
Read the OGL - #2. The license only applies to that which has been designated as Open Game Content. Anything that is designated as PI which is not inside of that which has been designated as OGC would not be covered by the license. Technically, nothing outside of OGC can be Product Identity because the license doesn't cover any part of the product which is not identified as OGC. And if the license doesn't apply to that part of a product there's now way to have PI because the license is needed to define PI. But that hasn't stopped people from claiming things as PI even when those things aren't within the OGC. And I've said this is pointless for quite a while. The purpose of the PI clause it to allow some protection of certain types of material within OGC. The protection does not extend beyond the bounds of the OGC; there you'll need to rely on regular copyright & trademark law. 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
