-----Original Message-----
From: kevin kenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Simply add the word "new" to section 8. Like this:
>
> 8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must
> clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are
> distributing are new Open Game Content.
>
>This would mean that if you are using a rule that is marked as OGC in
>another work, you wouldn't have to mark it as such in your work. Yet
>all new rules you create would have to be marked as OGC. So you could
>create some new rules and describe them all in an appendix which you
>could mark as OGC. The rest of your work wouldn't have to repeatedly
>mark these things as OGC.
>
>What do you all think?
Interesting idea but I it would make it more difficult for someone to
determine what part of your work is OGC, aside from the part that you marked
as new OGC, and which is not. In effect, this would require anyone who
derived a work from your product to follow backward through the chain of
copyrights to make this determination, or else only derive from the new OGC
that you include.
Imagine that you have created an adventure deriving content from the D20SRD
and added a new prestige class, the Heroes of Hogan, which has access to the
Superior Tunnel-Making feat from my Dwarven Sappers Guidebook which you
reproduce in your adventure. You mark the Heroes of Hogan as new OGC but
not the Superior Tunnel-Making because it is not "new" OGC. John Doe comes
along with no exposure to the Dwarven Sappers Guidebook but thinks that the
Superior Tunnel-Making feat would be perfect for the Rabbit Ninja prestige
class he's including for his Burrows of Fury game. He doesn't know if the
feat is OGC or not with tracking down the Dwarven Sappers Guidebook. So
John Doe uses the Superior Tunnel-Making feat from my product because the
feat is clearly marked as OGC there, crediting me in the Copyright Notice
and you are out of the loop.
This example shows how this proposed change in the license would go against
the intent of the OGL. While it's always possible to backtrack up the chain
of copyrights to derive from an original source, it shouldn't be necessary
to do so which is just what this change would cause. It leaves too much
ambiguity as to that part of a product the is not marked as "new" OGC is
actually OGC.
Chris
www.IDrankWhat.org
www.coincidental.net
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
