<<What I have been saying, and I am not sure how much
more clearly I can say it, is that the PI declaration
is not the only PI that exists under the OGL.
>>
Weldon, he seems to now be claiming that:
a) only trademarks need to be declared as PI; and
b) everything else that is PI eligible is PI even if it's not declared.
Imagine that only poses and trademarks are PI eligible. He's reading the definition to say:
"PI means any trademarks clearly declared as PI and all poses."
As opposed to:
"PI must be declared as 'Product Identity' to be considered PI. The only things that you can declare as PI are your poses and trademarks."
The sentence's punctuation is open to multiple constructions. The former reading I have eschewed simply because it makes it MORE work to protect a trademark than a pose, and trademarks are almost the definition of "Product Identity", so I find that reading labored. I think the second reading is closer to the intent of the contract since the contract says explicitly that everything in the work covered by the license is OGC if it ain't PI, and so you are required to demarcate the line between PI and OGC to make it very clear.
Chris also seems to think (and I say _seems_ 'cause I have no notion what Chris actually think any more) that the license has third party beneficiaries with enforceable contractual rights -- people who can sue you for breach of the OGL because they have intellectual properties from the PI list which are protected as PI (except for trademarks for some reason) even if they don't mark them as PI.
<<
nor am I saying
that there is a gigantic pool of PI anyplace,>>
No, that's just the logical implication of having undeclared PI by everyone who has ever drawn a pose or used language having contractual rights to sue for breach against anyone who has agreed to use the OGL.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
