> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Kletch > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 3:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] WoTC PI to OGC Timetable? > > > You're splitting hairs here. I like that.
I respectfully disagree. "Open Game Content" and "Product Identity" are terms specifically defined by the license. If they get misused, the conversation gets confused, and people get abused when they make mistakes based on this confusion. It must often be restated: 1. There's Open Game Content, clearly indicated and released and licensed under the OGL. 2. There's Product Identity, clearly identified. This is RELEASED under the OGL, but is NOT LICENSED under the OGL EVEN when it appears within OGC. In other words (as Alec has instructed us), PI has no meaning except within the OGL; and thus it has no meaning except when it appears within OGC. (Did I get close this time, Alec?) 3. And there's regular copyrighted material that is not released under the OGL, period. It is never, ever, ever correct to say "Product Identity" or "PI" when you mean "regular copyrighted material". It's also an incredibly common mistaken usage. This mistaken usage can have legal complications, so it should be corrected whenever the occasion arises. Martin L. Shoemaker Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com http://www.UMLBootCamp.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
