On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Tim Dugger wrote: > On 12 Sep 2002, Alec scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] (MM2) WotC violates the: > > > Not if Clark gave them permission to release the material as OGC they > > didn't. It's perfectly possible for anyone to release material as OGC > > that they are not the copyright holder of - all they need is the > > permission of the copyrght holder. And while it might be nice and > > less confusing for some if they explained that in the book, they > > certainly aren't required to. > > then they should have explained it. As it stands right now, to the > common person (not reading this list) it looks as if WOTC is > violating their own licenses
You mean "to you" rather than "to the common person" I assume. In all honesty, the "common person" responsibility extends no further than to the product in their hand. From all that's been described (since I don't have MM2) the common person should just be looking at MM2 and saying "yep, all this stuff is OGC." No one has a responsibility to attempt to track down if any product (not just OGL material) is misappropriating someone else's copyrighted material. That's the responsibility of the copyright holder. > Nor do we actually know if Clark did give them permission to > release it as OGC seperately from his own OGC. Didn't Clark just say he had? Anyway, it's not the end-user's responsiblity to do the backwork - if the book says it's OGC it's OGC until the original copyright holder comes after the publisher. Just like VP/WP is OGC because SPycraft says so until/if WotC decides to make the publisher changes the book. > Either way, it makes them look bad. (whether they were in the > wrong or not) To you maybe, but I'd say that has more to do with your misunderstanding some issues of copyright and the OGL than anything that WotC has done. alec _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
