In a message dated 1/16/03 4:41:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<The "problem" that people saw with the appendix method is that the OGL
requires you (as per s.8) to clearly identify which portions of the work
are OGC. If OGC appears in a section of the work not identified as OGC,
then you're in violation of the license. It doesn't matter if that same
content has already been identified as OGC elsewhere in the work.
>>
Scott, would consider reprinting the entire volume as a PDF with, for example, the graphics replaced with empty frames and the PI reset as "strike through" text as a clear indication of PI vs. OGC?
The pagination, the layout, etc. would be duplicated with the PI struck out. As an end user I'd find that fantastically more clear than other methods.
I'm trying to discern how this is particularly different than a textual description of OGC like: "The 1st through 14th words of the first paragraph on page 72 are open gaming content. �The 21st through 29th words in that paragraph are also open gaming content. �All other words in that paragraph are considered product identity."
One is a textual reference and one is a more graphical reference, but NEITHER is an "in line" reference (like a color, a font, or a box). Both are references which require you to compare what they display to the original if you wanted to verify things 100%. Only with this method, if the art was wiped out the PI had strike through text then it would be 100% unambiguous.
Plus if the text was something people could extract from the PDF then they could make immediate use of the OGC in their own products.
I really think that if the CD-ROM is considered part of the same work by designation of the author, then it seems like a graphical reference and a textual reference should both be OK. I'm looking to find a hole in this theory, however, before I try it.
Better to shoot yourself in the foot by asking a dumb question than to go to press, violate the license inadvertently, and end up in a lawsuit.
I think some of this would be much more clear if the license did what some other open gaming licenses did and defined "work".
Different, but kind of parallel problems could come into play for "clearly identifying" OGC in software applications driven by an OGC database.
Lee
