Sure I do. PI only means "this text is excluded from my OGC declarations, and I probably consider the names therein as trademarks according to the OGL."
It just happens that you, Steve, or anyone else can take my PI declaration, find a Public Domain source, and use my non-original names--as long as you don't "indicate compatability or co-adaptability." Which, honestly, if you use my stats and my name, you're very likely indicating one or the other.
Especially considering how clearly "co-adaptability" is defined. The license is the first i'd ever seen that word, and simple deconstruction seems to mean "can be adapted to work with"--well, with the possible exception of Psychosis (and maybe some other really out-there ones), i don't think there's an RPG on my shelf that i couldn't adapt, in whole or in part, to work with any other. I mean, how much work does it take before they're no longer "co-adaptable"? If simply using compatible or derived elements makes a work co-adaptable, how do i make sure i haven't "indicated" co-adaptability?
-----
Anyway, in answer to the original poster's questions:
What is PI? We don't know. It's either stuff you're forbidden from using, or stuff that is functionally not in the source when reusing. Oh, and PI is either a completely separate construct from OGC, created by the WotC OGL; separate from OGC but the WotC OGL can only be applied to works containing OGC; or a subset of OGC and therefore meaningless when declared outside of all OGC. And you either have to own PI according to conventional IP laws, or you have to own PI in some other manner, or you don't have to own it. Did i miss any of the possibilities? Personally, i believe that the "PI is 'missing'" theory is the best fit for the license, and have been convinced by the legal minds on the list that PI outside of OGC is meaningless (so, frex, the PI declaration attached to the new D20SRD has no weight and need not be respected, because those terms never appear in OGC, much less in the OGC of the D20SRD). As for ownership, i haven't a clue--i don't think any ofthe possibilities agree with both the WotC OGL and IP laws, and i don't think it can be cleared up without the license being reformed, at least slightly.
What PI mustn't i use? We don't know. The license makes it unclear whether you must avoid all PI ever published (unreasonable and therefore unlikely), all PI that is declared in works you cite (even if they are upstream sources and you've never seen them and can't track down a copy), or just the PI of those works you derive directly from. Ryan did clarify for us that, as far as he's concerned, PI is a conttractual agreement in isolation. IOW, you only have to know about and respect the PI declarations of those works you specifically derive from--the works they in turn derived from aren't your problem. I'm going with Ryan's interpretation because (1) he was behind the license in the first place, (2) his reading makes the most sense and provides the fewest logistical nightmares, and (3) his reading all but guts PI of any power and i personally wish that PI didn't exist at all.
Hope that clears all that up. And clarifies why i think the WotC OGL is such a lousy license, badly in need of revision. And why, if i *were* going to use PI, i wouldn't do so for anything i didn't have stronger protection on (such as a trademark or copyright claim).
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners. --Ernst Jan Plugge _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
