<<That's my point. The PHB contains information in the SRD but it gets around having to use the OGL because WotC is the owner of both the license and original materials. No company other than WotC could publish the work that is the PHB.
>>
That's entirely different from saying that the OGL applies differently to WotC when they use it. When they actually use it, they get no special treatment simply because they drafted the license.
<<However, if they print a Freeport
article, for instance, that doesn't contain OGC then they don't need to
put the OGL in the Dragon magazine. As the owners of the OGL, they could gain permission or a license from Green Ronin to use Freeport entirely outside of the realm of the OGL. The fact that Freeport material has appeared under the OGL wouldn't prevent this so long as none of said material appeared in that Dragon magazine.>>
If Freeport was stripped of its d20-isms, then I could (if Green Ronin allowed me) license Freeport. The ability to license outside of the OGL doesn't mean that the OGL applies to you any differently when you are using it. And we were discussing this in context of a FAQ entry Woodelf posted which applies to people who ARE using the OGL.
This whole thing about not using the OGL is missing the key point: the FAQ is about using the OGL, not about not using the OGL.
<<They can indeed publish materials related to
other materials that are OGC without opening up the former, so long as they come to a secondary agreement and don't use previously released OGC.>>
You can do the same thing with your materials. Mark Arsenault can, with his own system, do the same thing with Action System. This is NOT because WotC drafted the license. It has nothing to do with whether they drafted the license or whether you drafted the license.
<<They could publish endless articles that would, due to brand recognition,
seem to be using existing OGC but could actually be entirely closed in
this fashion.
>>
Mark Arsenault could do the same thing. The point is NOT who drafted the license, but who owns the underlying system. Mark didn't draft the license, but he can do (with Action System) everything that WotC can do with d20. He can license it separately, he can make Action System products that aren't released under the OGL.
<<Indeed, but without having access to those deals going on behind the curtain, all we can do is assume as to whether such a deal occurred or if it is an error on WotC's part if not indicated through the usual means.>>
This is irrelevant to Woodelf's original assertion about a FAQ on usage of the OGL. This means, what answers apply not when you are avoiding using the OGL, but when you ARE using the OGL.
<<Easily the best way to resolve your questions is to
ask WotC directly.
>>
WotC historically has been a little loathe to give out official interpretations of the OGL except for those things in their FAQ. I could email them and see if they bite.
I've had some very usable feedback on the license from WotC, but anything complicated enough for them to ask a lawyer about is something they don't trivially share around outside of formal channels.
<<Ask WotC to expand on their definition of "works." If all those items you stash under the title of "works" are being sold as a single entity their definition could possibly be better described using the word "product.">>
At some level, their definition is at the same time the opinion of an 800 pound gorilla and moot. They are the gorilla because they can sue you and make it hurt. However, they drafted a contract of adhesion and so as the drafter, any ambiguities are construed against them, not in their favor, rendering their opinions actually less value than a well-drafted opposition viewpoint.
<<
But that just brings us back to the point of whether or not "work" is>
defining the entire package because the items YOU are describign as "work" or not commercially separable.
>
Commercially separable is not the only issue.
In a book of poems, if 16 poets contribute 16 poems they own and a 17th person puts them in a volume to be published, there are 17 works: 16 poems with individual copyrights and the 17th work is the compilation. That's basic copyright law.
Such a book of poetry is a single product in that instance, but it may represent 17 "works" (1 compilation of 16 individually copyrighted sub-works).
I'm using the definition of "work" from that context to think about multi-part works (such as magazines, boxed sets with contributions from various individuals, etc.).
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
