Doug Meerschaert wrote:
Nope. Anything not identified as required in Section #8 and also not noted as Product Identity is "third type of content."
Find me anything in the license itself that supports this. Sure, there're discussions on this list--mostly attempts to make sense of seeming contradictions; there are Ryan's [the author or at least impetus] postings; there's the WotC FAQ. But is there anything in the license itself that actually says that? I've long suspected that that was the intended meaning of the license, but that a mistake was made along the way, and it doesn't actually say that. I'd be genuinely surprised if an IP attorney, with zero previous contact with the license, and without prompting or leading questions, would conclude on reading it that it both applied to the work as a whole (as opposed to some subset work) and allowed non-OGC non-PI content.
And, yes, that might undermine the various prohibitions of the WotC OGL and the D20STL. OTOH, most of those prohibitions are phrased to include "in conjunction with" type prohibitions. Even if only half the chapters of a book are covered by the license, i'd say it's a pretty safe bet that breaking the license's rules in another of the chapters would be construed as doing so "in conjunction with" the covered work.
And i have no idea what happens in a court of law if there's a contract dispute and the author says "i intended the license to mean X" and a witness says "i knew the license was supposed to mean X, so used it that way" and the defendant says "i don't know what he intended, the license clearly means Y, and that's what i did".
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
