I can think of at least a hundred discussions on this list that would never
have occurred if the license were as plain in this regard as what you just
wrote.
Agreed. There is only a very thin definition for PI. Nothing about ownership that defines what it means to be an owner. Some of the things on the PI list look like things not subject to trademark or copyright, and so they look like they either need to get punted (via reformation) or the license allows for PI ownership that goes beyond normal limitations of copyright and trademark (but sets no precise method by which to determine who owns a "concept", etc.).
"Formats", "language", "concepts", "names", "art", etc. basically are so bloody broad as to be all-encompassing of almost every meaningful word ever set to paper.
Now perhaps a judge might determine that the "owner" of PI must be the same as the owner of a copyright or trademark, but in that case, the judge would likely trigger the reformation clause (just a wild guess -- maybe not).
Lee
