<<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.
>>
Well, as I noted, it says that language, concepts, and formatting are protectable. And that can include, potentially, a particular form of expression. Moreover, and I'm going to make this point and then leave it (since it's been debated ad nauseum int he archives), the OGL notes that rules are OGC to the extent that they do not embody the Product Identity. Insofar as you declare as PI particular language, concepts, and form of expression, then therein lies the point of inquiry. To what extent are the language you use to describe the rules, the concepts embodied by those rules, the spells and monsters containing game reference values, etc. declarable as PI?
The lines of separability for mixed content could be as clear as mud in some instances.
<<
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. >>
I don't know that I'd claim that there's only one way to read it.
I almost wish WOTC would revise the license and clean up some of the language. That wouldn't fix things for people choosing to use an earlier version of the license, as those new lines of licensing text could not be held to be the only binding interpretation of previous license, but I think there would be fewer debates among those using a revised version of the license. And that's what it's all about, right? -- To allow sharing without hurt feelings or legal disputes...
Lee
