On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 17:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If the spell names are really unique there's a reason to protect them, but > otherwise this would be one of the only strong reasons to protect them. Even > in this case, it seems to make sense to PI the names and then include a two > sentence license to allow their use provided the spell descriptions are > reproduced verbatim. > > Other than protecting really clever names or trying to avoid having 2 spells > with exactly the same name but slightly different functioning, I don't see a > lot of point to PI'ing spell names by themselves. >
Now that makes more sense. So the following would be ideal: --- Spell Names are PI but may be used if the spell descriptions remain unchanged. Spell Names may also be used if no Spell description is used and only a reference to requiring product XYZ is used. --- This would allow the normal use of OGC but if they wanted to use your spell names then they could only do so if the spells are not changed or if the spell descriptions are not included at all. Would that be a correct method? Or are they grounds that make that illegal? Gary _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
