On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Robert Kozak wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alec A. Burkhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The requirement is that you "clearly indicate which PORTIONS (emphasis > > mine) of the work you are distributing are Open Game Content". It does > > not require that you simply clearly identify OGC content. Since anything > > that is OGC under the OGL is always OGC, that requirement means you need > > to clearly indicate all portions of a work that are OGC. How can you > > claim that where the OGC appears in the main text it is not OGC and claim > > that in the appendix it is OGC? If the text is OGC in the appendix, isnt' > > it OGC in the main text? And as such doesn't it's appearance in the main > > text constitute a portion of the work that is OGC? Therefore the license > > requires you to identify those portions of the main text that contain OGC. > > > > 1. The document is considered one whole portion of which its OGC clearly > indicated at the end in an appendix. I'd be completely amazed if you could find any court that would accept this since it is a completely unnatural reading of the language. The only way a whole work can be the portion of the work that contains the OGC is if the entire work is OGC. There is no way to identify OGC except to identify its location since there really isn't any difference between OGC and material normally protected by copyright. You in fact define the appendix as a separate portion of the work in your own example. So which is it -- is the work one whole portion or is the appendix the portion of the work that contains the OGC? You can't have it both ways. > 2. The document itself is closed except for the appendix which states it > contains the OGC of the product. In other words you've closed OGC. Sorry not allowed under the OGL. > 3. Release two booklets. Close Book A and release Book B as the OGC from > Book A. Once again you've closed OGC in book A. This is not permited under the OGL. The OGL requires that you find someway of keeping OGC open whenever it appears. It does this by requiring that you identifiy where OGC appears. Is there a reason people are trying to find ways to put OGC into closed portions of products? Seems to go against the whole principle of open gaming if you ask me. It also sounds like you are trying to say that the OGL requires that you clearly identify OGC. If that is the case please go re-read the license. I quoted the license exactly -- you must identify the portion of the work that contains the OGC. This is of course because there is no way to identify OGC other than by identifying where it is located. And has anyone noticed that I'm not saying that the appendix with clause statement doesn't qualify under the OGL? I've said I wouldn't want to be the one forced to make the argument before a court, but if you're happy with it you're free to use that method. To me it seems to only kinda, sorta clearly identify those portions of the main text that contain OGC. And while the OGL doesn't require that people use the most clear method of identify where OGC is, I'd tell anyone who was asking for advice that the clearer they identify where OGC is the better their case if they have to appear before a court. alec _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
