>My reading of this is that it makes explicit that you are in the wrong if you take someone else's Closed Content or Product Identity, reprint it in you book, and then declare it to be Open Content.
This actually extends beyond Closed/PI content; For instance, converting a creature from Palladium (where OGC/PI are meaningless terms) and publishing it as OGC (without specific license from Palladium to do so) would be a violation of Section 5 as well. ~Jimmy Domsalla qtgg.icehex.net ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 5:48 AM Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Section 5 > On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Rob Myers wrote: > > > I've a question about section 5 of the OGL: "Representation of > > authority to contribute". > > Surely by publishing something you are implicitly claiming that you > > have the right to do so? Does an explicit claim that you are the author > > or hold the rights simply make this clear to the would-be licensor or > > does it modify their legal position? > > My reading of this is that it makes explicit that you are in the wrong > if you take someone else's Closed Content or Product Identity, reprint > it in you book, and then declare it to be Open Content. It also > makes plain that your declaration of Openness is ineffective if the > material in question wasn't yours to contribute. > > Spike Y Jones > > _______________________________________________ > Ogf-l mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l > > __________ NOD32 1.628 (20040218) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System. > http://www.nod32.com > > _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
