> > woodelf > > > > so far, everyone seems to be operating under the assumption that "art > > doesn't count". even the Freeport adventures, which are "100% OGC" > > have closed artwork. and some of that artwork is surely illustrative > > of the content of the adventure. > >That isn't necessarily a problem.
it isn't necessarily a problem in the sense that it isn't necessarily a violation of the terms of the WotC OGL (you raise an excellent counter-example). but, IMHO, it *is* a violation of the claim "100% OGC". > > the only place that artwork or illustration is mentioned is in 1(e): > >That isn't evidence that artwork must be PI, only that it can be. OGC can >be "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the >Contributor" and "including translations and derivative works ". That >certainly is broad enough to include artwork or illustrations based on OGC. i wasn't arguing that artwork must be PI. rather, i was arguing that it "doesn't count" as derivative, for purposes of OGC. based solely on the fact that the description of PI explicitly includes artwork, while the one for OGC doesn't. but, remember, i think this is a spurious argument. i just suspect that such a (willful) misinterpretation of the license, combined with things labeling themselves as "100% Open" when the artwork is closed, has lead to people discounting the possibility, or maybe viability or desirability, of open artwork. -- woodelf <*> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://webpages.charter.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://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
