I think some of your broad sweeping conclusions are generally correct, but not entirely correct.
> The OGL provides for and requires a completely > self-contained account of > ownership and reference. Dont quite know what you are getting at here. I dont know that I would go so far as to say "completely self-contained account of ownership and reference." I think you are overstating a bit. But I get the point you are trying to make, which I think is essentially correct. > The word exact has very few meanings... As we find out, it may have more than you thought... :) > > 6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the > COPYRIGHT > > NOTICE portion of this License to include the > exact text of > > the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You > are copying, > > modifying or distributing [...]. > > Again, the word "exact". That means copy/paste, no > edits or abbreviations, the > whole thing. Here is an example where everyone agrees "exact" doesnt mean "exact". > The license says you must clearly indicate what IS > OGC. You may not designate > what is NOT OGC, nor may you specify parameters by > which one might determine > for themselves what is OGC. Not true. The license says: "You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content." If designating what is not OGC aids in "clearly indicating" what is OGC there is no reason why you cannot do that. I am not sure that you cannot specify parameters by which one might determine for themselves what is OGC. The license on its face does not prohibit that. The requirement is "clear indication". It does not say "all OGC must be individually labeled as OGC" nor does it say "all OGC must be apparent on its face as OGC". It says "clearly indicate." There are many ways to clearly indicate something. > Section 8 means that > the line "The following > material is OGC" must appear every time that you > begin a section with OGC, and > you must clearly state where that section ends. This is totally wrong. There is no such requirement. > I recall from after GenCon last year a statement > from WotC that, if you do not > indicate what is or is not OGC, then the whole work, > cover to cover, art, > mechanics, non-crunchy bits, everything, is accepted > as OGC. I heard that too. That is just crap. There is no way to argue that with a straight face. If the designation is unclear, the product violates the license, which has ramifications. There is no provision in the license turning all content into OGC. > If you happen to > lump in someone else's trademarks or PI through your > omission, then you are > responsible. True. > Show in black and white what is OGC, > or it all will be. Wrong about the "it all will be" but in general a good idea to be as clear as possible. > If you try to pull a fast one and try to be clever > with the complexities of the > license, you will slip, and it will cost you. That is probably a good statement: getting too sneaky will probably wind up biting people in the butt. Clark ===== http://www.necromancergames.com "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel" _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
