IMNSHO, the standard for "should this text be OGC" isn't "do I think it's derivitive", but either "do I think that it MIGHT be derivitive" or "am I willing to go to court to say that this isn't derivitive?"
That's a *much* easier standard to apply: of course i'd be willing to go to court to defend the claim that a die rolling technique, especially one of such obviousness and simplicity, can't possibly be derivative of anything else. Or, more specifically, that while it might be derivative, what it is derivative of can't possibly be protected by IP laws.
-----
BTW, anybody know off-hand if the Mac "look-and-feel" case (against MS) was based on copyright, trademark, or something else? I've done a cursory search online, to no avail (which probably just illustrates how mighty my web fu isn't). I ask because that was an IP case where, IIRC, the court ruled that, since all the little pieces couldn't be protected, neither could the whole. If it was copyright-based (as the references i've found imply), it *might* have some relevence to the question of copyrighting complex games like RPGs.
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/
The Laws of Anime <http://www.abcb.com/laws/index.htm>: #33 Law of Topological Aerodynamics, First Law of Anime Aero-Dynamics *ANY* shape, no matter how convoluted or odd-looking, is automatically aerodynamic. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
