You and Chris have both got me confused over this. I'm not sure what either of you is saying any more as you both seem to be pushing different concepts. I wish the pair of you would stop talking about what the other person has or hasn't said, get back to the issue and work it through to the end. Chris seems to be saying that sometimes you have to define PI and sometimes you don't have to define PI. You actually seem to be saying two things that in combination seem to support Chris's argument: 1) You seem to be saying that it is possible to define a subset of physical product (magazine/book/whatever) as a "covered work" under the OGL. 2) You also seem to say that OGC+PI=covered work. As section 8 requires people to define their OGC, then anything *within* the "covered work" that isn't defined as OGC must by an extension of your logic be PI. Am I right? This means that it would be possible, if your multi-part work logic is legally sound, to have PI that wasn't defined as PI. If it is *in* a work and isn't defined as OGC it must be PI, because you are stating that a third content can not exist. I don't think this can be the case. Lets say for example a publisher says that chapters 1 to 6 of a book are OGC, and the only thing that hasn't been defined as OGC is the contents page and the index (there is no PI definition). Readers use the contents section and the index section to find other stuff within the book, so I would argue that they both form an integral part of the work. Contents and indexes are of no use on their own, so I don't see how they would qualify as a work in themselves. If the contents and index pages are part of the work it is either PI or a third type of content. If you forbid the third content the contents and index have to be PI in order to keep that "100%" logic from collapsing. I don't believe they are PI, but it does seem to be the logical end result of the combination of your two assertions about the OGL. The same could be argued about the blurb on the back of a book that tells me what I will find within the book. It isn't OGC but it *is* intellectually connected to the OGC within and I'd say it was the same work as the stuff within. The only thing that I accept could qualify as a different work is an advert for another gaming product in the back cover. This has no relationship to the rest of the book and the book would function just as well if you ripped it out. David Shepheard |
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
