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).
Someone clip this (remove a few of the saucy remarks) and put this in an Unanswered Questions of the OGL FAQ.
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
