From: "Chris Helton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
Hi Chris, I've been struggling to follow you and Lee on this as you both seem to be talking up different points. After reading the following: > 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. <snip> > You will notice that by saying this I am not stating > that PI does not need to be declared, nor am I saying > that there is a gigantic pool of PI anyplace, nor am I > saying that there is one true way to declare PI. I > have never made those statements, and in fact I am > stating what I read in the OGL. None of these stances > or staements have changed since I started addressing > this subject. I get the impression that you are saying: 1) You have to declare some PI but, 2) Other PI can exist that is not specifically declared as PI. However, all the quotes of what you and Lee "did and didn't say", plus the large number of messages both of you have posted, have made it very hard for me to work out if this is what you mean. The actual nuts and bolts of the conversation are being buried in what seems to me to be a repetition of stuff that isn't the central part of the two topics you both seem to be talking about. > 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. I accept that you are not trying to impose your interpretation of the OGL, and I hope that you will accept that I am trying to work out what you are saying to Lee and not put words in your mouth. I would appreciate it if you would give an example of your interpretation (not a quote from the OGL) so that I can work out what you mean. Specifically what is the PI that exists but isn't part of the PI declaration? If it isn't declared how does it arise? Does it start off as part of a product/work/magazine that contains a copy of the OGL? Alternatively does it start off in something that has nothing to do with the OGL? If it starts off in a non-OGL document, how does it become incorporated into an OGL document? How do we know that it is PI? (By that I mean if I see a game product that doesn't define this PI in the PI definition, how do I avoid inadvertently duplicating that PI and breaching the OGL? What sort of logic can I use to identify all of this non-defined PI so that I can avoid using it?) Some of the people on this list (but not Lee) seem to infer a third type of content from the OGL: OGC, PI and Closed content or non-covered content. (Interpretations of the nature and/or the existence of the third type of content are disputed.) You seem to be splitting PI into two so that we get: Defined PI and Undefined PI. Am I right? Is this what you are saying? If it isn't please tell me what you *are* saying. David Shepheard Webmaster Virtual Eclipse Science Fiction Role Playing Club http://virtualeclipse.aboho.com/ http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/virtualeclipselrp/ _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
