> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >>Mechanics are not among the list of items allowed to be PI. They can be >>'closed content' (as was done extensively in the d20 Traveller book) but not >>PI. > > Rules and the expression of those rules can be considered separate things. In > fact, that's exactly what the U.S. copyright office claims. However, at the > same time, when there're a limited number of decent ways to express a rule, > the expression of the rule may become indistinguishable from the rule itself.
In which case the expression it is not protected by copyright. That does not change the fact that in the OGL, game mechanics are not among the items which the license defines to be 'PI'. It is not a copyright issue, it is a license issue. While it can be said that PI could be interpreted broadly to include 'language' which might embody game rules, and that 'concepts' such as specific rules might be PI, it can also be interpreted narrowly and have the opposite conclusion. That doesn't protect anyone any better than closed content or non-OGL content does. The only effect it has is to give owners of the OGC which might also appear in an infringing work a right to sue for breach of license where they would not have had otherwise. I suppose that might be an advantage in certain cases, but it also puts the publisher who declared the closed content as PI in potential conflict with the original OGC holder (WotC/Hasbro, usually), who might decide that it was the declaration of PI which put the license in breach, and make them very unhappy as a result. It seems to me that at best, declaring game rules as PI is not a safe way to protect your IP. -Brad _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
