Also the way I've been reading it, the reasoning behind indicating what is OGC and PI is that in a technical sense either one could be derivative of the other.
Basically its saying these rules are rules and this text is NOT based on those rules. However if you don't indicate what is PI and OGC clearly and just say anything derived from OGC is OGC then I can take all the rules and start showing how various flavor text is derived from those rules. This kind of debate has been going on in MUD forums for years and it always ends up as one thing in the end. If you start with someone and add to it or change it, the added part is derivative of the original and subject to the same license. The OGL gives you a way to NOT have this virus like occurrence, in that it lets you say that text like <This> is not OGC or that text like >This< IS OGC. This is also where I think WotC has their stance of if you don't have it clear then its all OGC (that I've only read in commentary). Either way I'm a mathematician/programmer not a lawyer :) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 2/14/03 1:44:17 PM Eastern > Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > <<If you use the _rules_ not the text, as I have > said quite a few times now, > > you _cannot_ be in violation. Whatever the > source. This is not > > convoluted - it is the most basic application of > OGC that you can get, other > > than 100% useage (text and all). > > >> > > Did you copy ANY text, including the names of the > feats from other sources? > If so, this is an insufficient declaration. If you > used ANY feat verbatim, > then the text is OGC and should be declared as such > by its initial author. > > > <<See above. Follow those guidelines and you > cannot go wrong. At all. Yes, > > it means there is more work involved, as you have > to rewrite everything but, > > to be frank, that is neither here nor there. > > >> > > > The point being, is that if any of the text was > already open then as an end > user, provided I follow the requirements of the OGL, > then I can use that text > verbatim. I need not rewrite it from scratch. Nor > can any open text that > was not rewritten from scratch be closed by some > later author. > > Lastly, "rules" does not cover the names of the > feats. I could identify the > names of some of the SRD feats. If memory served, > they matched the > originals. That tells me that some of the names of > the other feats also > probably matched the original documents from other > non-SRD sources, and I > can't be sure if those names were declared as PI or > OGC. > > Your answer seems most insufficient. > > Lee > > ===== Kem Rangoric, the Slayer of Gods. My Web Page Has Moved to: __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
