On 3 Sep 2005 at 20:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The problem with adding the "plus leftover standard copyright law > stuff" as part of the covered work, is that those things that are part > of the covered work are not covered under standard copyright law. For > instance, you are allowed to get away with some things in copyright > law (mentioning other people's trademarks, or quoting short passages > under fair use rules) that you aren't allowed to do within a covered > work under the OGL.
So we would have the following: 1) OGC 2) PI 3) Non-OGC, Non-PI Material For #3, it is neither OGC nor PI, and is covered by normal copyright law, except where it is superceded by the limitations from the OGL. Would that be a better way of phrasing it? Okay, now back to the core question. The issue being discussed is as follows: Lee has stated (and he can correct me if I get this incorrect) that in his opinion, if you apply the OGL to a work (any work), that it is automatically 100% OGC. You then need to declare what portions are PI, and declare what portions are OGC, and that the work is made up of only those two types of content. However, the way that I view it (i.e. my opinion) is that when you take a work (any work) and apply the OGL to it, that you automatically end up with two types of content. The first being that which must be declared OGC (i.e. any mechanics or other material derived from the SRD or other OGL sources (presuming that those other sources made their declarations correctly and you are using those sources properly). The second type would be content type #3 that I listed above. At this point, you would then expand the OGC declaration to include anything else you want to be OGC. You would also make your PI declaration for anything you want to mark as Product Identity. By my reasoning, the license would not include the following clause ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- if the whole work were considered OGL just by applying the license to the work. To put it another way, "Why do you have to clearly indicate which portions of the work are OGC if the whole work is considered to be OGC just by putting it with the license?" This topic was a sidebar that came out of the thread, on rpg.net, about the OGC wiki that Mike Mearls proposed, and that others have since began working on. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
