> Martin L. Shoemaker
>
> I think Ryan has been clear (and the added emphasis above reaffirms) that
> there are not two mutually exclusive categories, as you suggest,
> but three:
I know what Ryan said, and I believe he said it in good faith. You
emphasized that anything can be OGC, that derivatives works must be OGC, and
that mechanics which are an enhancement over prior art must be OGC. I don't
see how that adds up to a third, unspoken category of 'closed content'. The
most I could possibly stretch out of that is that there is a third, unspoken
category of OGC that isn't required to be OGC but is anyway out of the
goodness of the author's heart.
> It would be nice if the license was more explicit on this; but "and is an
> enhancement over prior art" and "derivative works" seem slearly
> intended to
> describe what MUST be OGC and thus limit what MAY be closed
> content.
We are in complete agreement here. 1(d) does a good job at saying what can
and must be Open Gaming Content.
> If game rules are neither enhancements over prior art (boy,
> that sounds like a new storm brewing) nor derivative works,
> then they may be closed content, though the license provides
> a structure for releasing them as OGC as well, if the
> author so chooses.
My problem is that 1(e) does not allow game rules to be PI, and there is no
mention of a 'third' state of being in the license. If one is implied, I
just don't see it.
-Brad
