The problem with Democracy is that 'prevailing wisdom' is often wrong.
I'm not saying that there is a 'correct' interpretation, just that until such time as a case actually goes to court there is no 'correct' interpretation.
Because of that, there is pleanty of legal ground to argue that the OGL covers an entire work and that material within that work is either OGC or PI. If you check the license there is no description of what "Other stuff not covered by the license" would look like or how to handle it.
Weldon Dodd wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: avatar of Darkness
Not saying which interpretation of that line is right or wrong, but it would seem to me that if Chris' interpretation is correct you wouldn't have to mark it as PI.. its simple ommision from the Open Content of the product would seem to be enough.
Prevailing wisdom is that there are three types of content in a work covered by the OGL. Material must be identified as OGC to be "open" (section 8) so there exists the possibility that there is content that is not identified as OGC. This second type is just normal copyrighted material that is not licensed. The third type is Product Identity which specifically means material that is included in OGC but is meant to be explicitly excluded from the terms of the license for open material. If material is ommitted from OGC (meaning it doesn't appear in a section of OGC material), it can't be PI. That material would be the second type of normal, non-open content.
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
