----- Original Message ----- From: "Spike Y Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:43:09 EST > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If you license artwork using a non-OGL license, and you publish it > > in an OGL'd work should you: > > > > a) declare it as the licensor's PI (on the grounds that the owner > > has given you the implied authority to note that their product is > > protected) > > > > b) note that it is outside the scope of the license since you are > > neither the owner of the art and you are also do not possess the > > rights to declare it as OGC > > > > The OGL seems to require that the owner of the PI carry out the PI > > declaration, but the general question is whether someone acting on > > behalf of the owner, directly or indirectly as the agent of the PI > > owner, can make the PI declaration. > > Those who believe in closed content that's neither PI nor OGC can > exclude artwork from the OGC. > > Those who don't would have to have the owner of the artwork put a PI > declaration within the publisher of the work's own OGC/PI > declarations; they couldn't merely declare it outside of the scope of > the OGL, since they don't believe there is such a thing. I believe that there is a *real-life* example of something similar to what you are talking about in the Vintari RPG setting design guide: The PI definition includes a list of 6 names and a graphic symbol that "...are Product Identity of ProFantasy Ltd. and are not Open Game Content." ProFantasy Ltd. are also listed in the section 15 as Copyright owners of 3 things (in this case computer programs). The PI/OGC definitions all looks fair and reasonable to me (even though IAMAL). The publishers have defined a lot of things as OGC that they don't need to (including a collection of mapping symbols - the most unusual, but undeniably useful, sort of OGC I have ever seen), so I don't have any objections to them using the PI rule to protect the products of someone else they are using work from. Perhaps you could ask someone from the Vintari Project to chip in and explain the reasoning they used to construct the licence and PI/OGC definitions, if reading it still leaves you puzzled. By the way the rest of the product is good too! ;-) It is a free PDF file that is mostly OGC so if you are into that thing you can get it at: http://www.steigerwaldedv.com/vintyri/vrsguide.htm I can't see any need to challange a PI definition if that definition does not restrict anyone in any way. Perhaps this is not totally by the rules of the OGL, but it certainly seems to be in the spirit of it, as the artwork you mention would not be required by anyone who wanted to reuse YOUR OGC. If removing artwork by PIing it doesn't "cripple" the rules in any way, I can't see why anyone would want to bother you. David Shepheard _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
