On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Is it just me, or does anyone else find this incredibly vague as a PI > designation? > > "All thematic elements are PI and everything else is OGC". > > Now, it's not more vague than the OGL itself (since that's a protectable > category), but so many things (classes, spells, etc.) could be "thematic elements" > in the proper circumstances that I am not sure that stating that "thematic > elements are PI'd" is particularly clear as to exactly what is and isn't OGC.
I think the intent of the drafters of the license was probably something along the lines of "thematic elements are a protectable category, so if you have a thematic element you want to protect, write it down and then declare it PI." Same with poses and language and all the rest of the vague categories. The problem comes when a publisher just says "all poses" or "all language" or "all thematic elements", instead of "the pose that Grrgywzz takes in the illo on p. 25" or "the words written in Thurjarian in the fiction segments" or "the theme of..." (well, I'm having trouble thinking of any thematic element that someone might want to try claim off the top of my head). Once again, sloppy usage. Spike Y Jones _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
