On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 12:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Why? If ownership is not at issue (the only restriction on PI other > than that it be on the laundry list is that it be "owned" somehow) I > don't know why.
You seem insistent on using this term "ownership" for some reason. It is really not germane to this conversation. Two parties can agree to all sorts of mutual terms regarding things that are not "owned" by either. "Ownership" of those things is not required. The OGL licenses just one thing that is "owned" by anybody: The copyright rights in Open Game Content. All the other terms in the license are not tied to "ownership", they are tied to a mutually agreed framework of behavior liked to that copyright license. > I see no reason why that agreement would not be binding (if combed > through to clean up the language and add additional, needed > information). So what? Your made up contract isn't the OGL. Debating its merits or enforceability is meaningless. > I don't see specifications for PI that exist that clarify this matter. That's because you're being obtuse. I can't tell if you really believe what you're writing or if you're just tossing hand grenades to watch the explosions. In either case, you have two choices: Use the license, or don't. I doubt that it will be reformed now, or ever. Debating the merits of a reformation may be interesting, but it is probably pointless. > I think reformation would be required to answer the question of > ownership unambiguously. You're just wrong. You can continue to debate this one-sided argument all day if you'd like, but you're simply incorrect on the merits of your whole theory. > Why is the OGL not a contract of that construction? Because, and this is the point you keep missing: IT DOESN'T ENCOMPASS ANYTHING EXCEPT THE WORK LICENSED. The OGL doesn't say anything about "all use of any content identified in this work as Product Identity from any source". "Product Identity" is scoped to the work licensed. If the same content comes from some other source, that other source is >not< Product Identity, even if it is exactly the same content. Anything that comes in from beyond the scope of the licensed work is handled solely by standard copyright and trademark laws. Period. > And what in the OGL demands that PI be an enhancment over the prior > art? NOTHING DOES, LEE. That's the difference (see my previous message) between "PI that is invalid" and "PI that has no value". You can make valueless PI declarations all day long. The act of doing so doesn't make them any more valuable. They're valid - but valueless. Ryan _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
