> Clark Peterson > > I'm sorry. I'm not following you. > > I should point out there is another portion of the > product (the credits page) that designates the entire > work (c)2002 Necromancer Games. Is that what you are > talking about? And the fact that I designate things as > PI rather than just leaving them outside of OGC?
I wholeheartedly agree with your choice to designate PI. The other copyright language is probably what I was looking for, but just in case I'll try to be clearer. In the bottom of your post you say: "The above Product Identity is not Open Game Content and reproduction or use without the written permission of the copyright holder is expressly forbidden, except for the purpose of review." My question is why this statement seems necessary? It seems to be addressing some sort of Fair Use of PI (but does not address Fair Use of OGC, which is also valid), and seems redundant with (and not quite as precise as) the statements in the OGL regarding PI. It doesn't seem to give you any catch-all type benefit, it just seems to be a reminder that PI is off-limits. The only people I can think of that would ever care about what is PI and what it means are those who will become intimately familiar with the OGL and thus very aware of the restrictions placed on PI. I haven't decided yet if you are claiming (marginally) greater rights than the OGL grants...it requires more thought than my tired brain has at this point. Even if you are it wouldn't matter in any but the most obscure circumstances. I think this is a very minor point, more a curiosity on my part than anything else. It certainly doesn't hurt anything as written. -Brad _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
