<<I'm confused again now, Lee. >>
I live my life in confusion, no worries, David.
<<
Don't the people that talk about "closed content" define it as:
"That part of the work in an OGLed document that isn't OGC or PI. And is therefore not affected by the OGL (but is covered by standard copyright law)."
>>
Yes, and I am explicitly rejected that definition and noting that it seems pretty clear from the definition that everything in the covered work is either OGC or PI. However, realize, that just because you have a book containing some OGC doesn't mean that that's a "covered work". It could be that chapters 3-5 of your book are actually a sub-work of rules, etc., without art, or anything else worth PI'ing, and that those chapters, as a collective sub-work, are what are being licensed under the OGL. Those chapters should contain only OGC and PI. The rest of the book is non-OGC and non-PI. It is only tangentially within the reach of the OGL. Those non-PI, non-OGC portions of the book are not a "work covered by the license" within the meaning of the license (or more properly within my understanding of the meaning of the license).
<<So isn't their infered definition (of the third type of content) legally identical to yours?
>
>
No, the definition is similar in a practical sense, but in a de jure sense, the two definitions are directly at odds. In a practical sense, a book containing OGC can have three types of content. In a legal sense, you are going to select the whole work or some sub-work of that book to be covered. Whatever is covered does not contain non-OGC non-PI'd content if you handle the license correctly per my reading.
<<As far as I can see these are legally identical as both of them end up as things that are not covered.>>
David, one group says "there is a third type of content INSIDE the covered work." I and a few others have suggested that this third type of content is OUTSIDE the covered work.
That creates somewhat different legal implications for someone wanting to push the envelope a bit. If you don't push the envelope, they are practically identical. So, de jure different, but de facto similar in many, many instances.
<<Both definitions would leave you with text that was covered by standard copyright
law (or IP law and other relevant stuff if it applies) but not covered by the OGL.>>
If something is inside the covered work it is definitely covered by the OGL.
<<
Am I right, or am I barking up the wrong tree?>
>
My opinion? *bark* *bark* *ruff*
<GRIN>
If something is inside a covered work it is bound by all the OGL. If something is outside a covered work, it's affected by only a couple of smaller clauses in the OGL.
You are closer to understanding what I'm saying, but again, either I am blowing the explanation and failing to convey my point (very possible) or that it's so nuanced that either you aren't getting it or its just very tough to convey in this particular medium (email) and if I had a chalkboard and 5 minutes we'd be speaking the same language.
I suspect it is the latter, honestly
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
