> woodelf
>
> so where did this concept of "wherever used" come from? i see nothing
> in the WOGL (the only legally-binding document on this matter) or
> even the FAQ accompanying it (merely advisory, in any case) that
> indicates that the OGC must be "identified" "wherever used".
"Wherever used" isn't quite correct. "Wherever distributed" is more
accurate, but in this case the term was meant to mean "wherever used in a
work you distribute" and so it is close enough. You must mark all of the
OGC you distribute.
The distinction reminds me that Fair Use applies to OGC as much as it
applies to anything else. It is perfectly legal for an individual to make
Use of OGC personally and not comply with the OGL - that is, the output of
the program does not need to be marked so long as it falls within Fair Use.
That means programs that don't get distributed and game materials printed
for you home campaign can ignore the rules so long as you don't distribute
it. Section 8 nods to this by using the word 'distribute' instead of 'use',
but I think this angle has been overlooked in most discussions.
> i don't
> see how you can claim that putting OGC in italics with notice
> elsewhere that italic text in the work in question indicates OGC is
> obviously superior in compliance to extracting the OGC text,
> reproducing it in a separate portion of the work, nad explaining that
> the text is OGC, both there and where it originally occurs in the
> text.
Lets make an example. Ignore for the moment that in this particular example
might not be protected by copyright - we are going to assume that the user
wants to mark everything that came out of the SRD as OGC. Consider the
basic mechanic of the skill check. In the SRD, the OGC looks like this:
"Skill Checks
To make a skill check, roll 1d20 and add the character's skill modifier for
that skill. The skill modifier incorporates the character's rank with that
skill, the character's ability modifier for that skill's key ability, and
any other miscellaneous modifiers the character has, including racial
bonuses and any armor check penalty. The higher the result, the better. A
natural 20 is not an automatic success, and a natural 1 is not an automatic
failure.
VS. A Difficulty Class
Some checks are made against a Difficulty Class (DC). The DC is a number
that the character must score as a result on the character's skill check to
succeed."
Below is a bit of source code that is derivative of the OGC above (Assume
that the comments are missing):
'this is not OGC
iDC = 20
iSkillMod = 7
iAbilityMod = -1
iMiscMod = 0
txtDC.Text = iDC
txtSKM.Text = iSkillMod
txtABM.Text = iAbilityMod
txtMiscM.Text = iMiscMod
'OGC: this uses a skill name from the SRD
txtSkill.Text = "Hide"
'OGC: this line uses die notation from the SRD
iRoll = RollDie("1d20")
'OGC: this uses a mechanic from the srd
bSkillCheck = (iDC <= iRoll + iSkillMod + iAbilityMod + iMiscMod)
'this is not OGC
txtRoll.Text = iRoll
txtSuccess.Text = iif(bSkillCheck, "Success", "Failure")
The question becomes, can a "reasonable person" determine that the lines in
the middle are OGC and the rest are not? Below is an example of why this is
not as easy as it sounds (again, assume the comments are missing):
i = 20
j = 7
j = j + -1
'this line is OGC
if (i <= j + Int(20 * Rnd + 1)) then
The above code contains the OGC skill check mechanic just like the first
example, but now it is very hard for a "reasonable person" to determine
where it is. Now imagine trying to figure out where the OGC is in compiled
code.
One might be tempted to return to the question of whether this is actually
protected by copyright. The answer is simply that it doesn't matter - such
a question is beyond the scope of the OGL. If you want to use the OGL to
obtain "safe-harbor" protection, you must assume that everything you can
trace back to OGC must be clearly identified.
> says who? this is not a rhetorical question. please point me to the
> section of the WOGL, or a legal document/statement from the OGF, or a
> court ruling, that supports this for the WOGL, specifically.
That's not a fair question. You didn't cite any sources for your opinion
either. Besides, that's the sort of question you hire a lawyer to answer
for your specific application.
-Brad
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
