Clark, Looks pretty good to me. I think people have brought up the technical legal problem - however I also think that's a problem that we on the list can't really come to a solution on. Personally I think the important aspect of what you've done is the statement that if someone follows the system for re-use you've provided (and it's a good thing you're providing the very detailed & specific example in the book), Necromancer won't allege a violation of the OGL. That guarantee looks to be legally binding and I'm not sure anyone else could possibly have standing to sue other than WotC. Have you asked them directly what their thoughts are on such language?
As for some of the other legal arguments, here are my thoughts on two of them. Based on them, I think a good argument could be made that what you've proposed is perfectly acceptable under the OGL - but I don't know what a court would actually decide. 1. "exactness would lead to duplicate entries in section 15" This has been discussed before, and I think it's a fairly safe argument that if two products have the same info in their s.15 that by including the info once you are still providing the exact text from each product. If someone were attempting to construct the s.15 text for all the various products used, they could easily do so - they'd just be using the OGL & SRD notices more than once. I don't think that violates the letter of the license (and I think everyone agrees it doesn't violate the spirit). A problem here was pointed out a week or so ago by Mike Cortez (I believe) of what to do when two products have different info for the OGL or SRD in their s.15s. While I think it's a technical violation to not include both, it's probably ok to just use the correct notification for the OGL & SRD. 2. "copyright notice of the OGC *not* the product that contains the OGC" I think DM brought up a good point with this. The OGL requires you include the exact s.15 text of the OGC you re-use rather than the exact s.15 text of the product you got that OGC from. Now in most cases there hasn't been a difference between the two, but Clark is creating a situation where there may be a difference. This is also causing me to rethink the whole netbook issue, as it just might be possible to individually list every item in a product's s.15 and yet re-users are only required to list the specific items they use rather than the whole thing. An interesting legal argument, but who knows what would happen if the whole thing wound up before a court. I think providing a detailed explanation of how to re-use material & do s.15 is called for when trying something like this. alec _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
