On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Faustus von Goethe wrote:
> >From: Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >. . . as open game content, including the names (which is
> >handled by a seperate limited license contained in the
> >book itself).
> >
> >So d20 producers, feel free to use RR spells in your
> >products (pursuant to the license of course).
>
> Sounds cool, BUT what happened to:
>
> OGL #2. The License: . . . No other terms or conditions may be applied to
> any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
>
> Since we have already determined on this list (I thought) that the OGL
> applies to the WHOLE DOCUMENT, is there a legal grounds for doing this? I
> thought that material in an OGL document could be either "open" or "PI".
> Sounds like what you are proposing violates the OGL?
OGL#2 says you cannot have an additional license that applies to Open Game
Content. Having not seen the license in R&R, I assumed from Clark's post
that the new license is in regards to the use of the spell names. Spell
names are not automatically Open Game Content but can be designated as
Product Identity. If this is what has been done with the license in R&R
it is exactly in keeping with the spirit of the OGL as it has been
discussed on this list. Your reading would mean that there is absolutely
no way for people to have PI and provide a means for others to use that
PI. Actually your reading would imply that the D20STL is a violation of
the OGL as well since the OGL has no exemption for licenses concerning
just trademarks.
alec
