Doug Meerschaert wrote:
woodelf wrote:
Neither of those clauses in any way necessitates, or even implies,
non-OGC, non-PI content. Why refer to a "work containing OGC"?
Because it also has PI, and both "parts" are covered by that clause.
Likewise for the necessity to indicate OGC--just because, if a work
only contains OGC and PI, it would be slightly redundant to identify
both of those, doesn't mean that there is some 3rd bit. And, again,
if the work that the license refers to is allowed to be a subset of
the physical work, that, too, would explain the necessity of
identifying both OGC and PI, without necessarily allowing the license
to *cover* non-OGC non-PI content.
But, again-- what would the difference be?
If "Big Book of Stuff" has Chapters 2, 3, and 4 delcared to be Open
Gaming Content, and ten names Product Identity, does it matter if
Chapters 1 and 5 are "non-OGC non-PI covered by the OGL" or "seperate
works in conjunction with a work covered by the OGL."
I'd have to go do a very careful re-reading of both the WotC OGL and,
more importantly, the D20STL. It might not make a difference. It
certainly wouldn't make a difference most of time. But, while most of
the prohibitions in both licenses includ "in conjunction with" or
similar terms, i seem to recall that some of them only appear to apply
to the covered work. So, if there is material that is outside the
covered work, but part of the physical object, it might not be subject
to those prohibitions.
Furthermore, if there is no 3rd type of content within a covered work,
then it becomes much trickier to sensibly chop a work up into lots of
little pieces. Let's say you have a chapter of feats, and all the feat
names are PI, and all the feat mechanics are OGC, and nothing has been
said about the flavor text describing the feats. Is it sensible to refer
to what is essentially every other paragraph of a chapter as "a work",
in the vein of copyright definitions? If not, then maybe you really
can't chop things up that way.
Now, personally, i don't *like* the interpretation that there is no
non-OGC non-PI content in a covered work--it wasn't until i had the
"third type" of content explained to me that i was willing to even
accept the license as viable--but i'm not yet convinced that, should it
ever come down to a court to decide, that that third type is actually in
the license.
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
