On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Alec A. Burkhardt wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Damian wrote: > > > > Also note that Ryan (and by extrapolation, we can assume the Wizards' legal > > team) have said he believes it to be merely non-exclusive. Not that I have > > any idea who's right.....just that the guys with the briefcases see it the > > other way. > > Whoops, I actually meant to include the statement that Ryan has once > stated that he thought the list was non-exhaustive. Must have forgotten > to finish up when I edited something earlier in the post. > > However, I would not extrapolate such an opinion to the lawyers at WotC as > the language is pretty clear that the list is exhaustive. Legally if you > want something to be non-exhaustive you need to include language to that > affect. Plus the single time Ryan said anything could be PI, he was > actually trying to make an entirely different point - as he pointed out > after Clark & I explained the language issue.
Another point I thought I had made originally, but upon checking can't find: even as an exhaustive list of what can be claimed as identifying marks, there is very little that probably doesn't fit somewhere into that list. About the only thing that has come up so far (and which resulted in Ryan's statement that "anything can be PI" which I don't know if he still holds to) was rules. New rules would not seem to fit any of the concepts listed as what can be considered identifying marks (and thereby also able to be claimed as PI). The original thread dealt with the issue of whether or not rules had to be OGC however, not really PI. Someone suggested that it was possible to claim new rules as PI (obviously these would be entirely new rules, not something derived from existing OGC). Someone else said that couldn't be done and rules had to be OGC. After a bit, Ryan said anything could be PI. But the real point was that new rules don't have to be OGC - they can be kept separate from OGC entirely and protected as normal copyrighted material. And after that was made clear, I don't remember Ryan returning to the statement that anything could be claimed as PI. and i now think i see why i simply decided not to include all this and hope that it would just not be necessary. alec _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
