--- Mike Kletch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I would say that a strict interpretation would > > > require you to mark an > > > in-product advertisement as non-OGC, since it is not > > > a game mechanic, etc. > > > > Or you could argue that by the definition of OGC, > > unless marked, and in-product ad could never be > > considered OGC and thus doesnt need to be marked as > > non-OGC. > > > > There are three types of content: > > > > 1. Non-OGC > > 2. OGC that is not PI > > 3. OGC that is PI. > > > > I dont have to designate 1. > > > > I just need to "clearly indicate" 2, and 3 if I have > > PI. > > > > Clark
Oh, The Sigil pointed out to me offline that Section 1 allows the author to specify anything they want as OGC (the very last part of that definition). However, most ads would probably contain PI, anyway, otherwise it wouldn't be much of an ad... Section 1 does say that: "Open Game Content" means [the stuff] to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity [...]. So there is no OGC that is PI. You should have: 1. Non-OGC 2. Non-OGC that is PI 3. OGC -Mike __________________________________________________ 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
