My position is that you cant "default" stuff to OGC
unless, perhaps, you can clearly show that it is or is
derived from OGC.
I dont buy the "OGC by default" argument. In my view,
nearly any "ogc by default" situation, what you really
have is a failure to use the license properly. A
license violation does not create default OGC. It
creates stuff that "should have been" designated as
OGC and wasnt, but that isnt the same as making it OGC
by default.
Clark
--- Thomas Kyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
---------------------------------
Does this mean that, in a work that had 10
chapters, where thefollowing definitions were in
place: (abbreviated, obviously)
OGC: Chap 2, 3, 6, 7, 10
PI: Chap 1, 4, 9
Would the other chapters [ 5, 8 ] default to OGC (So
all _but_ 1, 4, 9were open, even though they weren't
declared that way?) I've seenseveral well-known
authors\publishers declare both, with some parts
asneither....
Ryan S. Dancey wrote:From: "Clark Peterson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Can I say the "work" is just chapters 2 and4? Or, in
your view, does the "work" mean the whole book?
The intent of the license is that it apply to all
chapters.
This is a required interpretation. Otherwise, it
would be possible toput the things that we didn't want
you to be able say like "Thisproduct is compatible
with Dungeons & Dragons(R)" on the cover andclaim that
it was not a part of the "work" covered by the OGL.
My reading of copyright caselaw indicated that the
courts view anycommercial unit sold as a whole as a
"work" for the purposes ofcopyright licenses. 3
booklets sold in a box is a "work". A
magazinefeaturing many articles is a "work".
The caselaw regarding anthologies and collections is
also prettyclear: The "work" is the body as a whole,
but that body may comprisemany individual components
with different copyrights. However, thecollection
gains copyright protection as well (you can't make a
CD ofBeatles tunes that features the same songs in the
same order as "1",even if you had the individual right
to republish the songs themselves,or even to publish a
collection of #1 hits.)
This is the same interpretation I believe should and
would be appliedto the trademark license. Otherwise,
you could put all the verbotenstuff in a booklet
shipped inside the cover of a hardback game and makea
complete RPG, etc.
From my reading, I believe that "work" isalmost
always used in the most expansive way possible. For
example, in Anderson v. Stallone, thecourt held that
the entire script written by Anderson was
anunauthorized derivative work of Stallone's original
Rocky script,despite the fact that the only thing the
two works shared in commonwere the names of the
characters and their general descriptions.
Ryan
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
--
Thomas E. A. Kyle ( Kirin'Tor )
eTools - ContentManager
d20 Multiverse - Webmaster& Designer
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 -
> Release Date: 9/2/2005
> > _______________________________________________
> Ogf-l mailing list
> Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
>
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
>
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
