<<There is the point of contention. At what stage does something distinguish
itself as being specific enough to warrant declaration as PI and at what
point is that name, when it utilizes terms previously released as OGC and
defined therein, significantly different enough from those terms or their
descriptions to avoid being considered "Derivative Material" and hold up as
valid PI?
>>
Listen, read the definition of "derivative works" under Title 17. It's included by reference into the license. Realize that the scope of "derivative work" should, by the Title 17 definitions, include almost any body of work you publish that has more than a "fair use" amount of somebody else's work (even if that stuff is lawfully licensed). The one point I'd like you to take away: such a strict reading as yours would effectively (by my reading of the OGL and Title 17) mandate that anyone with anything other than the license and their own work in Title 17 are making a derivative work.
Arguably, Sec. 106 of Title 17 suggests that a person can prepare and authorize derivative works of anything that he owns copyright on. Since a person can prepare works derivative of his own works, your reading of the OGL combined with this reading of Sec. 106 would make it impossible for a person to ever declare PI in a work. That's the logical next step in your line of thinking, in my opinion, if you read the OGL and Title 17 together (and Title 17 is included in the OGL via indirect reference to the definitions of derivative work).
It must be possible, for the OGL to have any meaning, for a person to carve out PI in a derivative work, since a huge number of OGL covered works draw upon sources other than themselves.
Then I recommend that you review the ad nauseum debates on the nature of PI in the archives. Search for my name. I play devil's advocate on both sides of the fence in many of those debates. Other catch phrases to look up are "forbidden terms" and "white out". Ryan has some intriguing viewpoints on those threads which are variants of the "white out" theories of PI protections (in a nutshell, that some PI declarations are valid and lawful, but effectively empty of protections for the things they purport to protect).
I don't think anything new is being added here at all by me or anyone else. I tried posting a few comments in hopes that I might clarify something, but this is approaching redundancy. I will have to leave you to debate with others on this matter.
Good luck in finding a reading of the license that works for you, but keep in mind that a reading of the license which supports the notion that nobody can every have PI in a work that is defined as a derivative work under Title 17... well, let's just say that I bet such a reading of the OGL won't be popular among serious publishers on the list.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
