----- Original Message ----- From: "Damian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wednesday 18 February 2004 03:15 pm, Mark Clover wrote: > > ...where that PI is valid, yes. The crux of my debate is in regard to the > > nature of PI and its potential to be invalid on the basis of being > > "Derivative Material" which I believe trumps a declaration of PI and > > renders that declaration invalid. > > Spell names are not of significant length to be eligible for copyright > protection and therefore cannot be "derivative works" under the definition in > the OGL. Huh? So what does that mean? If the spell name is not eligible for copyright protection does that mean: it can not be PI because it is not copyright? or it can't be made invalid as PI because it is not derivative and is therefore is somehow safer as PI than something longer? David Shepheard _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
