>I believe that referring to a non-OGC feat is "using" >that feat under the license, since you arent just >listing it, you are "using" it in a stat block or as a >prerequisite for a new feat, etc.
so you think you might be in the clear if all you did was have, say, a list of feats available in your setting? i'm not convinced that listing it as a prereq for something is less innocuous than listing it, period. >Since you are using the feat, the OGL applies. The OGL >requires you to only use either that which is OGC >(which that feat isnt) or that which you create and >contribute as OGC. or that of other's work which you can legitimately use, according to copyright laws. >Then you run afoul of the contribution clause. which raises an interesting point: is there something that you can use, according to copyright, but you can't contribute, according to the WotC OGL? my first instinct is that anything you are allowed to reuse, is sufficiently non-owned that you could contribute it, too. i.e., there's nothing wrong with making, say, the title of a book OGC (via a citation)?--it may be silly, but it doesn't do any harm. you've not affected the content of the book, and a title, unless it is trademarked, is just some words. moreover, anybody would *already* use that title, whether or not it was OGC. >The contribution clause exists for the sole purpose of >preventing you from using a non-OGC "thing" and making >it OGC improperly by your use. You dont have the right >to make a non-OGC feat OGC because you dont have the >authority from the copyright holder of the work to do >so. ok, i think i see what you're saying. but, a simple name isn't game content, so i don't think that you're obligated to release it, whether that name is the name of a feat or a person, or whatever. and since you're not obligated to release it, and the source material isn't OGC, i don't think the issue of authority to contribute needs to come up. [from another post] >I believe if you use content and it is derivative of >OGC then that new content is covered by the license. but stuff in, say, Tome & Blood, is not derivative of OGC, so i'm not sure i see the relevance. >So if you use a feat or a spell, that stuff is must be >open content from a open source (the srd or another >producer) or it must be newly created ogc by you. if you want to contribute it as OGC. the license sets only one explicit limit on content that is not OGC (or PI): can't use trademarks. otherwise, we're just looking at the regular copyright laws. which, admittedly, are crystal opaque. but i'm not convinced that the OGL is relevant, at all, to using the non-trademarked name of a game element in a portion of your text that is not itself OGC. >Thats where the problem lies. Using non-OGC content >(such as a non-ogc feat) doesnt fall in one of the two >situations above. exactly. which is why i claim that the restrictions of the WotC OGL are utterly irrelevant, and this is a question of conventional copyright. now, it may still be illegal, but not because of the restrictions of the WotC OGL. and, further, it seems to me that if you want to use just the name/label of something, essentially as a citation/reference, without any attempt to claim ownership of that item (and provided there is not a trademark involved, of course), and without reproducing the actual item, you are in the clear. -- 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
