This is like having two authors work on a book, and then saying "everything by Joe is OGC, everything by Fred is not" without marking where the dividing line is. The OGL provides for and requires a completely self-contained account of ownership and reference. If you want to shorten your Section 15, do some research and determine if the piece you want is from a book with a shorter 15. You can choose which other Section 15 you reference, but you must include the whole thing.
> "4. Grant and Consideration: [...] the Contributors grant You > a [...] license with the exact terms of this License [...]." The word exact has very few meanings... > 6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT > NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of > the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, > modifying or distributing [...]. Again, the word "exact". That means copy/paste, no edits or abbreviations, the whole thing. > 8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You > must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you > are distributing are Open Game Content. The license says you must clearly indicate what IS OGC. You may not designate what is NOT OGC, not may you specify parameters by which one might determine for themselves what is OGC. Section 8 means that the line "The following material is OGC" must appear every time that you begin a section with OGC, and you must clearly state where that section ends. "Do this" does not mean "Do this other thing that soft of maybe accomplishes the same thing". The instructions are there on the page/screen. What is OGC. Section 1 is a tangled mess, but it leave no escape. OGC is everything that you indicate is OGC, and that must include anything that you use from another source by right of this license. I recall from after GenCon last year a statement from WotC that, if you do not indicate what is or is not OGC, then the whole work, cover to cover, art, mechanics, non-crunchy bits, everything, is accepted as OGC. If you happen to lump in someone else's trademarks or PI through your omission, then you are responsible. Show in black and white what is OGC, or it all will be. If you try to use some other method, it does not matter. You either lose your PI or lose access to the license. All it will take is one ruling in this direction from either Wizards or a judge, and the whole house of cards collapses. Use the license as it requires, or you will, in one, two, five or ten years, lose your property through laziness or omission of proper details. The OGL is a well-crafted, interlocking set of rules, requirements and instructions. Lots of legal mumbo-jumbo, but the concept is simple and solid. If you try to pull a fast one and try to be clever with the complexities of the license, you will slip, and it will cost you. Mike Kletch ... ... wronged creator of content used in a recent for-profit, hardcover collection of prestige classes. --- Jeff Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with you completely that such a designation could be annoying. But is > it "proper"? It seems logical (I am aware that logic sometimes has relatively > little to do with law) that if the statement, "everything derived form the > SRD is OGC" is proper, then the statement, "everything derived from source X > is PI" would be equally acceptable. > > Jeff Fox > Wish List Games > Branscon VII > > <<If it is "correct" to use a phrase like "Everything derived from the > SRD is > OGC" could one then not also use that type of declaration to deliniate > their > PI. For example, "everything derived from [licensed source or PD source > x] > is PI"?>> > I think this type of designation is not generally gonna be very clear to > the end user. Instead of telling the end user what is and isn't PI/OGC, you > are effectively saying, "hey, go download the SRD, then read it all, and then > figure out for yourself what you think is derivative". > > Referring to another product that is not packaged as part of the single > commercial unit within your distribution would probably not be very cool. > Without owning that other product the reader could not clearly figure out > what is and is not OGC. > > > <<Then you could have a designation like, "This product is entirely OGC, > however everything derived from [licensed source or PD source x] is PI." > > While I don't agree that a child with a highlighter should be the > standard for a clear designation of an OGC, I think saying, "hey, if you are > fortunate enough to own this other product then you _might_ come to the same > determination about OGC as I would," is entirely insufficient. > > If don't want a complicated OGC declaration then declare just your > trademarks and product titles as PI, and then OGC the rest of the document. > > But I think you're headed down the wrong path if you try to shortcut your > OGC declaration to save yourself work. The OGL is about clarity, even if the > clear indications are a little on the long side to explain. > > I am not a lawyer, but if you are gonna try to use an OGC declaration > like this then I'd suggest you get a lawyer and have him scrutinize the OGL > and your product. > > I think if anything, while people around here can and do sometimes > disagree upon the meaning of "clearly indicated", some vague description of > being derivative of a product that the user may not possess probably just > doesn't cut it. > > YMMV > > Lee > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
