>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.
that's a good point. but if that's the case, then isn't that saying
that , precisely counter to how i've heard it discussed around here,
the WOGL *doesn't* apply to a whole work, but only to the OGC of a
work? that is, that it is misleading to say "The Creature Collection
is released under the WotC OGL, with the following content designated
as OGC...", and we should really be saying "The following content of
the Creature Collection is released under the WotC OGL..."? i'm not
sure, off the top of my head, that the distinction is meaningful, but
i have this gut feeling it makes a difference. heck, if nothing
else, if you take it that way, it *does* clear up the question of PI
to a great extent: if the license only applies to the OGC itself,
then clearly all PI does is simplify things, so you don't have to do
strange things when it comes organization/layout to not mix open and
non-open content.
but if the license only applies to the OGC, then you can use
trademarks to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with another
work, so long as it occurs outside the OGC ('cause the rest of the
work isn't covered by the WOGL). so it seems to me that we have to
consider the license as applying to the whole work, or the various
restrictions are meaningless.
in any case, the clause 2 doesn't say it "only" applies to OGC, it
just says it applies to OGC--i'm not sure that it forbids the
application of the license to a work, or portions of a work, without
OGC. this, of course, would be a moot point, if the license only
talked about OGC. but it also talks about PI, and use of others'
trademarks. it's true that the license passes through the OGC--if
you created a work with designated PI, and no designated OGC, no one
could easily derive from your work, and if they did so, they wouldn't
have to release it under the WOGL. but, while probably pointless, i
don't see that it's forbidden.
>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.
i suspect you're right. but i still am nervous about the
wording--why does it list stuff that you are rarely, if ever, going
to be able to own in the first place? why make it possible to own
stuff when it appears within OGC, when you can't own it outsidef of
OGC?
>The protection does not extend
>beyond the bounds of the OGC; there you'll need to rely on regular
>copyright & trademark law.
i agree that the PI clause of the WOGL isn't going to suddenly change
copyright law--but i'm not certain that someone might not *try* and
use the definition of PI in an attempt to claim greater ownership.
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.home.net/woodelph/
If any religion is right, maybe they all have to be right. Maybe God
doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them.
--Sinclair
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
