----- Original Message -----
From: "Alec A. Burkhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Attempting to fully understand the software issue.
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Damian wrote:
>
> > From: "Alec A. Burkhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > No it would NOT! That's the whole point here, all the OGC in the
> > > adventure must be identified as OGC in the adventure. It doesn't
matter
> > > if there's a separate book that just contains the OGC. Everywhere the
OGC
> > > appears it must be identified as OGC.
> >
> > No it doesn't. Look at lots of the OGL works out there. The S&S stuff
> > specifically. On the front page there's a section that says something
to
> > the effect of "names are PI, all else is open." That's the only
reference.
> > There's nothing different about the names anywhere else in the book.
>
> Everywhere OGC appears in all S&S stuff I have (CC & RR) it is clearly
> identified as OGC. A clear statement of exactly what portions of the book
> are OGC does clearly identify those portions as OGC. Clear identification
> in no way requires that there be something different about how the text
> physically appears. That's the whole point of having the reasonable
> person standard for clear identification. A single statement in a work
> can clearly identify what parts are OGC and what parts are not, and that
> is the approach S&S (and some others) have chosen to take. Others have
> chosen to use a different background for OGC, or to separate all OGC into
> text boxes. In all cases, the OGC is clearly identified everywhere it
> appears.
>
> This is why a semi-separate (appendix, second booklet, etc.) doesn't pass
> the requirements of the license. Sure the entire appendix or second
> booklet is identified as OGC, but NOTHING in the main part is identified
> as OGC even though it is OGC. Something has to tell the reader what
> portions of the main book contain OGC. Whether a statement in the second
> part stating that whenever you see the following material in the main book
> it is OGC would be sufficient would require a court determination.
> Personally I wouldn't want to be the lawyer trying to make such an
> argument as I don't think it's a very strong one. Essentially it's
> telling everyone to memorize the entire second part so that when they see
> the same passages in the first part they'll know those passages are
> OGC. Is this something a reasonable person would consider making clear
> what is OGC in the first book?
>
Lo,
But what if the second part is actually all part of the same book, ie not
seperate in any way. Say pages 1 - 1000 were the book and pages 1001 - 1100
listed all OGC. Or pages 1-100 listed. Would this not then be the same as
saying at the start this is PI everything else is OGC.
I understand your objection to it if the list of OGC was a seperate book,
but if it was part of the overall work which to be honest a seperate book
that shipped with the product would all be considered part of the same work
wouldnt it?
This has confused me so much that I think I just won't bother with OGC at
all in my products unless I can use them under some seperate licence
directly from the author..... WOTC may have a way to unify pen and paper
game rule systems, but it seems that there will still be plenty of software
game rule systems been invented.
Maybe the answer is for WOTC to make an updated licence that what would be
acceptable for software to do. Think this is unlickly to happen though.
bb.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mups.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
