From: Doug Meerschaert > > Reginald Cablayan wrote: > > > > And what is your revision wishlist for the Open Gaming License? > > 1: Expressly clarify if PI is "no permission given" or "agree > not to use."
Of the two, I'd lean toward "agree not to use" which would give publisher a measure of control. > 2: Expressly allow attribution of unaltered content when done > so not in advertising. (i.e., "Ritual item rules from Relics & Rituals") That would conflict with d20 System Trademark License and Usage Guide on citation of works. In fact, it would conflict any trademark use agreements, such as M&M Superlink. Whether it falls under PI or standard trademark law, you "agree not to use" without the permission of the author/publisher. > 3: Expressly allow "closed content" - just because, if we're revising > anyway, it's a good one to clear up. And how would that benefit publishers who wants to contribute, if not re-use content? _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
