> Sec. 15 from Dragon has this: > Oathbound Copyright 2002, Bastion Press > No declaration of OGC, so I'm making an assumption that all > text on pp. 47-51 are OGC, and not the rest of the magazine > too. Any average juror would see that. > > I'm doing Oathbound conversion for PCGen. For that, I have a > copy of Oathbound at my place for reference, albeit borrowed. > The Section 15 has > this: > Oathbound: Domains of the Forge Copyright 2002, Bastion Press, Inc. > > Hm... not precisely 'exact text'. Moving on.
In my opinion, the entire Dragon article on Prestige Races is OGC (with Oathbound and Bastion Press being PI). The Oathbound: Domains of the Forge hardcover lists the pages and sections which are OGC for that book, along with a long list of PI. > I can see these scenarios: > 1) Pazio Pub. made a mistake. First actual use of the OGL, > and the on-line consensus seems to be that the first thing a > pub puts out gets slack. Even Wizards (MM2) I suspect this is correct scenario. They included the OGL right after the article to better identify the only part of open content in the magazine (all the black pages), but failed to specify the exact material. > 2) 'Oathbound' is the name of the article for purposes of the > OGL. (and they could have used the ideas from Oathbound via a > separate contract, not as OGC.) We conducted the work under contract, with Paizo/Wizards retaining all of the rights to the article as Work for Hire. Good Gaming! Jim Butler, President Bastion Press, Inc. http://www.bastionpress.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
