On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, woodelf (lists) wrote:
> >I'm only responding to this topic again because I'm really starting
> >to think that the problem people are having is not with the law but with
> >the English langauge. The license requires you to clearly indicate
> >PORTIONS (emphasis mine) of the work which are OGC. (I've also already
> >explained why this legally makes a difference and is required.) Since the
> >language doesn't include qualifiers about only indicating some portions
> >and not others, the plain English (and not surprisingly the legal)
> >understanding of such a sentence is that ALL PORTIONS which are OGC must
> >be indicated. Which is essentially the same as saying that wherever OGC
> >is used it must be clearly indicated. So the concept comes directly from
> >section 8 of the OGL.
>
> i know i'm probably wearing thin on your patience, but please bear
> twith me. i'm not trying to be obstinate, i'm really trying to
> figure this out. so just pretend i'm really slow (which, apparently,
> i am), and help me with this part. the part that reads as a leap of
> logic to me is between "ALL PORTIONS which are OGC must be indicated"
> and "the same as saying that wherever OGC is used it must be clearly
> indicated".
I think I see your problem. There are different ways (both valid) of
understanding what is meant when I state that "wherever OGC is used it
must be clearly indicated." Of course I did clear (very explicitly) in
earlier posts. No where do I say the actual indication of OGC must occur
wherever OGC occurs. What I said was that you must clearly indicate all
portions of text that are OGC - which is the same as saying that
every place that OGC occurs must be identified as OGC. It is possible to
indicate every portion of text that is OGC by making a statement at the
beginning or end of a work that tells you how to identify which portions
are OGC. I've never claimed that how the portion(s) are being indicated
must be explained every place where OGC is located in the work.
> let me take a very concrete example: Relics & Rituals. have you seen
> this book? do you think it complies with section 8 of the WOGL?
> because it does *not* indicate OGC "wherever used". the actual
> indication of OGC (that is, the info that is necessary for the reader
> to identify which portions of the work are OGC and which are not)
> occurs on the title page, while the OGC itself is scattered
> throughout the book. so, do you think that R&R is in violation of
> section 8 of the WOGL, or do we simply have a different
> interpretation of section 8? [for that matter, IIRC, none of the
> published D20 books that i've looked at so far (Diomin leaps
> immediately to mind) indicate the OGC at the point of said OGC. they
> all seem to use some sort of graphical, organizational, or
> typographical technique to distinguish OGC, and then indicate in the
> introduction that said graphical, organizational, or typographical
> technique designates OGC. for every D20 book that i've actually
> looked at (a very small subset of the whole, mind you), you would be
> unable to identify OGC without referencing the title page, TOC page,
> or introduction (depending on the work in question), yet none of
> those has any OGC in said locations, so the indication is not in the
> same place as the OGC itself.]
Since I used R&R as the example earlier to show that it does in fact
indicate OGC wherever OGC occurs, I'm guessing you either aren't receiving
all the messages on the list or aren't bothering to read all the messages
clearly. As I've said above, how you are reading my statement is a valid
interpretation of the written word, but is not the only (or any more
valid) interpretation. And it was cleared up very early on that I've
never meant that the method of indication had to be explained every time
OGC is being indicated. What I've said is that every portion (which is
the same as saying location or place) that is OGC must be clearly
indicated and that the appendix concept does not clearly indicate those
portions of the rest of the work that are OGC.
> >As I've said, I'm tired of this topic. If you don't want to take my
> >advice (someone with a law degree) that's fine with me.
>
> the question isn't whether or not i'll take your advice. i have no
> intention of using the WOGL (or the D20STL) for anything, ever. i'm
> philosophically inclined to use the OOGL if i don't want to keep a
> work of mine closed. please don't take this discussion
> personally--i'm not. i'm just trying to get to the root of this.
Root of what? The original question resolves around does an appendix
sufficiently meet the requires of the OGL section 8. Section 8 requires
that all portions of a work that are OGC be clearly indicated. Not simply
that all the OGC used in a work be indicated at least once. An appendix
only identifies OGC in the main body of the work by saying essentially
"find those parts of the main body which are identical to this appendix."
As further explanation of why I feel a court will have problems accepting
such an assertion, try figuring out whether the appearance of three
consecutive words in the appendix makes those words OGC. How about a
whole sentence? a paragraph? stat block? what if the formatting changes
between appendix & body? what if there are proofing problem (extremely
prevalent in the RPG industry) resulting in differences between appendix &
body?
alec
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
