> From: Brad Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> I just see that list of categories of things that CAN be PI, and 'game
> mechanics that are not enhancements over prior art' does not
> fit into any of
> them. Since 1(d) also says that OGC is 'the entire
> work'...'to the extent
> that such content does not embody the Product Identity', that
> leaves little
> room for non-PI to be anything other than OGC.
1(d) does not say "entire work" anywhere. It does say, "...and means any
work covered by this License...but specifically excludes Product Identity."
2 says "This License applies to any Open Game Content...."
So combining the two, what it appears to say is (among other things)
OGC = whatever is covered by the licence,
and
The Licence covers whatever is OGC.
Rather circular. Neither statement really closes the door on the possibility
of there being work not covered by the license, as far as I can tell.
I think the question is in part whether or not the OGL is a licence that
pertains to a Publication or to material WITHIN a Publication.
In other words, is it possible to accurately state, "Portions of this
document are provided under the terms of the Open Game License. Included
under that License is...", so long as none of the non-covered portions of
the Publication were derivative of prior OGC?
> Essentially, 1(d) says it doesn't have to be OGC, and at the
> same time says
> it must be OGC because of how 1(e) is worded.
1(d) specifically excludes PI from automatically being OGC, but does not
claim that PI is the ONLY excluded content. This leaves room for there to be
material distributed under a single cover that falls entirely outside any
definitions used within the License.
ObDisclam: IANAL, so do not act on my analysis without speaking to your own
laywer.
