> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Helton > This is the definition of Product Identity that I have been > using all along. You will notice that since it contains the > phrase "and any other trademark or registered trademark > clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the > Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open > Game Content" > that I do understand that declared PI is a part of PI. > 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.
OK. I get it. You're reading this section of the license in a completely different way than me (and I would say everyone else). I read the license to say that there is a list of things that can be PI and that list is inclusive up to "registered trademark" at which point the license says what you must do to make those things PI. All of those things that could be PI up to and including registered trademarks must be "clearly identified" and specifically exclude OGC. So in my interpretation, there is no PI unless it is "clearly identified." It's not just one way to be PI, it's the only way. In fact, since PI only has meaning within the license, you could say that PI must appear in the licensed work such that it would be OGC if it were not otherwise identified as PI. For example, if you declare chapter 2 (and only chapter 2) to be OGC then a name that appears only in chapter 1 is not PI because it's not included in OGC and doesn't need to be excluded from OGC by being clearly identified as PI. In this scenario, the name is just copyrighted material that is not OGC. This is the current interpretation on this list and is shared by the majority of large publishers that post here. > You will notice that this section does not only include PI > that has been declared to be so, but actually anything that > is defined as PI under section > 1(e) of the license. This is all that have have been saying all along. Section 1 says PI must be clearly identified to be such. This is the heart of our disagreement. > Once again, I will state that I am not trying to impose my > interpretation of the OGL on anyone and that what I am > interpresting only has to do with me. Fair enough, but maybe you should read the OGL faq to see where I get my interpretation. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
