> But this is where I see Wizards as cleverly getting > around the problem > -- or more accurately, clearly delineating the two > different things in > such a way that there's clearly no problem at all. > By releasing the > material in the PHB etc. and THEN in the SRD, it is > clear that there's a > concept they own and an incarnation they open > license. No one can > misunderstand this.
I agree it was a very smart move to do the SRD rather than just say "everything in the PHB is open except for X, Y and Z." It clearly creates an open content source aside from the physical non-open version. That is really smart from a "protect my copyrights and intellectual property" point of view. > But now here's what I don't understand: is this > distinction between > concept and incarnation always the case? Or is this > a special case > because of how Wizards chose to release? More > specifically, does the > concept have to have appeared in a non-open form > first in order for me > to claim that there is the concept and then the > incarnation? The PHB/SRD > division made sense to me that way: the PHB was > non-open, and they had a > right to use it in any way they want; and then they > chose to use it by > creating the derivative SRD, which they chose to > open license (I refuse > to say "license openly": sometimes better grammar > just sounds > pretentious). I see what is hanging you up. Maybe you should think of your product like this. Any product you create is copyright you. At then end of your product, you designate what is OGC. So really, you are making a PHB and an SRD, if you take my meaning. The book your print is the non-open content. You then designate "your SRD" in the back of the book when you designate your open content. Does it help to think about it like that? Does that help you not think "hey wait, I NEVER made a non-open version, so I dont own anything." Because you did. > Or assuming I have full, undisputed rights to the > material in question, > is it always the case that I own the concept (sort > of a Platonic ideal) > separate from owning any specific physical > manifestation of that > concept? This seems contrary to the "ideas can't be > copyrighted" school, > so I think I'm still confused somewhere. Yeah, I didnt mean to get you hung up on the platonic ideal and not being able to copyright ideas. You create a product: your book. You then at the end indicate that it is open content. Clark ===== http://www.necromancergames.com "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
