<<Whatever that percentage is - it is the percentage of the industry that supports the existence of a third content. If the industry agrees on a third content then surely it *does* exist.
>>
If 99 out of 100 people thinks you should do something, but 1 person does not, and the 99 are doing something that goes against a clear, unambiguous, explicit definition in the contract, then the 99 are out of luck.
If it's vague or ambiguous, then industry standards DO win out. If it's unambiguous, the desires of 99 would be construed as trying to add or change a term of the license (which the license does not allow).
<<
I believe that if one article in a magazine is OGL covered that it should have its own version of the OGL *within the article* and that the OGC/PI definition in the article should also be *within the article*>>
Absolutely.
<<Your logic of OGC+PI=100% implies that an area can be created outside the OGL and therefore used to circumvent fair use and compatibility restrictions."
>>
They might well be able to do just that. It all depends on what "in conjunction with" means for some of that determination.
<<You seem to have assumed that the OGL says "If your book is not 100% OGC and PI you must make two copyright declarations and only put the one that applies to the 'covered work' in section 15.">>
The license says your Section 15 entry should be the copyright for the OGC. Not for a larger work that contains non-OGC.
<<
I don't see that section 15 is a definition of covered work.>>
Section 15 is explicitly the copyright of your _OGC_.
<<
I've never seen a game product with two or more copyright declarations for the new material that separate new OGC/PI and new third content.>>
I've seen a number of books that Section 15 "The OGC from XYZ".
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
