--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You've claimed that people don't have to declare PI > for it to be PI. By > default then, anything on the PI list is PI whether > or not it is declared as PI,
Again, you are putting words into my mouth to attempt to create a nondefensible stance. You are incorrectly stating my opinion, and I am starting to think that you doing it in a willful and purposeful manner. Please stop. Yes, actually, by default anything defined as product identity by section 1 of the OGL is considered to be product idenity under tha OGL. Thank you for restating what I have been saying from the begining. > making all the things on the PI eligibility list PI > all the time even if they > aren't declared as PI, since it is, by your claims, > the existence of something > on the PI eligibility list and not the PI > declaration itself something that > renders a thing PI. Actually, no. You are still required to make a PI declaration. The OGL says that you have to. We have both pointed this out in our quotes, and I have mentioned it in this thread as well. I have never said that there is no need to make a PI declaration. I have said that, according to the OGL that is not the only thing which defines PI. > And since a thing which is PI > cannot be OGC, then anything > on the PI eligibility list, declared or not, must be > PI, and (by the license) > therefore cannot be OGC. > > It's the logical extrapolation from claiming: > > a) all the stuff on the eligibility list is PI; and > b) you don't have to declare your PI, PI just is PI No it isn't a logical extension, and again you are tyring to put words into my mouth to make your increasingly asinine assumptions seem more credible. Again, I have never once said that there is no need to declare PI. However, you also need to realize that any declaration of copyright and/or trademark is considered to be PI as the OGL defines it. > I attribute the stance to you, or the logical > implications of what you are > concluding about not having to: You can attribute all that you want to me, however that is not what I ahve been saying and you know that it isn't. Creating a "logical" yet extreme example in an attempt to discredit a person's view point is nothing but bad rhetorical skill. > Um. People do this DAILY on RPGNOW. Declaring > 99.9% of the stuff on that PI > list other than the title of the product as 100% > OGC. They declare > characters, spells, creatures, etc. as 100% OGC. Well, that is good for them. Is that a smart business practice? No. Most of those people are only hobbyists who are only selling product because the bar has been so lowered for what it takes to become a "publisher." That does not mean that it is a smart model to follow. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
