On Sun, 7 Oct 2001, woodelf (lists) wrote:
> 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.
The second reading is probably more correct technically, but it really
doesn't change much even for those using the license, much less the
general consumer. Unfortunately, it's also possible that the more
technically correct expression may be more confusing to the general person
who's really not interested in the details of Open Gaming. And your
absolutely correct the real purpose of PI is primarily aesthetics. You
could protect everything covered by PI without using PI by, for example,
designating the OGC as being everything in red and then making everying
you would claim as PI not be red. It would look ugly and perhaps increase
costs, but it's certainly possible.
> 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.
Nope, because in clause #7 you agree not to use Trademarks to indicate
compatability or co-adaptability IN CONJUCTION WITH a work containing OGC.
That's how the license only applies to the Open Game Content but can step
outside what's specifically covered by the license. Otherwise even the
reading that license covers the entire work wouldn't prevent you from
using trademarks in advertising. Advertising isn't being released under
the OGL at all. And obviously anything in a product containing OGC is in
conjuction with that 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?
What stuff? Everything listed under PI can be owned in some manner or
fashion. Almost all of it falls under normal copyright law. Notice that
while the PI definition is general (plot, story, character, etc.) when a
person claims the PI, those generalities become specific. Once these are
specific, the law is fairly clear that you can claim copyright protection
for a specific story, plot, character, likeness, etc. as long as you can
show that you clearly created it. PI is stronger protection in many
respects but it's incorrect to say that PI protects that which can rarely
if ever be protected otherwise.
> 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.
Well, I have thought of 1 way of doing what you originally proposed - that
of releasing a document that just contains PI. Simply designate
everything that you identify as OGC as also being PI. Of course it would
need to meet the requirements of what can be PI. And it'd be rather
pointless because the restrictions on using PI only apply to those who
derive from you. Since such a work would have no useable OGC, it's highly
unlikely anyone would deriving from it. Although I guess if your PI was
so great, someone might contact you about licensing that PI.
I've also come up with another way of explaining the three types of
material that can be found in an OGL document. I think one problem is
that we often speak of them as being different types of content, which is
correct, but many also take this to mean the three are distinct from each
other. It is more accurate to say that each is a sub-set of that which
precedes it. And the OGL actually only applies to the last two. The
three are:
1. Copyrighted Material
2. Open Game Content
3. Product Identity
If you look at this as a hierarchy, each type of content is simply a
specific form of those above it.
So both Open Game Content & Product Identity are Copyrighted Material. I
think most people are clear on this. The important thing here is that
under the terms of the OGL you are allowed to use this Copyrighted
Material whereas you might not otherwise be able to.
Here's where it might get confusing. Product Identity is actually Open
Game Content. It's just a type of Open Game Content that you've agreed
(under the OGL) not to use without getting explicit permission from the
copyright holder. But it's probably confusing to think of PI as being a
type of OGC. But under the terms of the license PI must be within OGC,
therefore PI must be OGC. Any PI claimed outside of the OGC really isn't
covered as PI by the OGL; although I'd still advise against trying to use
it since it still is copyrighted.
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
