> woodelf > > 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".
Ok, if that's what they say I'll buy that. > 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. Well, the definition of derivative comes from 1b (...in which an existing work is recast, transformed, or adapted;) and 1e (...including translations and derivative works under copyright law...) Since OGC can be anything, it can be a description of a fictional creature. If that description is "recast, transformed, or adapted" into a visual representation of that creature, then the visual representation needs to be distributed under the OGL. > but, remember, i think this is a > spurious argument. So you are arguing for a point you think is wrong? Why? > 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. It might well be a problem for the artists or the publishers who want to have custom illustrations. Artwork can be quite expensive, and good artwork is at least as valuable as a well-developed setting. For those reasons OGC artwork might no be useful to the community as a whole. I hope there are some exceptions. -Brad _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
