Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations

2005-08-12 Thread Tim Dugger
On 12 Aug 2005 at 10:09, Spike Y Jones wrote:

  Slaine, Warp Spasm, Tir Nan Og, Fomorian, Red Branch, Fir Bolg,
  Enech*, Cromlech.

Here is an idea - for these terms, since they are public domain, 
include a statement of such. 

Example:
Public Domain terms: From Celtic Mythology, the following terms 
were derived, list terms here

This way you are officially declaring the source of your terms, which 
also indicates that you are NOT using anybody else's PI.

I would also suggest including a bibliography of the books you used, 
but the OGL does not allow for that.


TANSTAAFL
Rasyr (Tim Dugger)
 System Editor
 Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com
 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l


Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations

2005-08-12 Thread Tim Dugger
On 12 Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote:

 I don't recall bibliographies being specifically banned by the OGL.

But other people's trademarks and such are, and that can very 
definitely include book titles, and company names.

TANSTAAFL
Rasyr (Tim Dugger)
 System Editor
 Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com
 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l


Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations

2005-08-12 Thread Tim Dugger
On 12 Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote:

  Here is an idea - for these terms, since they are public domain,
  include a statement of such. 
  
  Example:
  Public Domain terms: From Celtic Mythology, the following terms were
  derived, list terms here
  
  This way you are officially declaring the source of your terms,
  which also indicates that you are NOT using anybody else's PI.
 
 Depending on which reading of the PI terms of the license you go
 with, doing this isn't necessarily going to get you anywhere.

It will however be the start of a path that indicates that what 
somebody else declared as PI is not the source of your use of those 
terms. And that will help in case there is an issue over it.

Simply put, and I vaguely remember this being a topic of discussion 
once before, if somebody declares something that is in the public 
domain as PI, you are allowed to go back to the public domain 
sources as being the point from which you derived such terms. 

ThePublic Domain declaration would specifically indicate that this is 
what was done in this instance, and specifically declares that the 
author/publisher was not re-using the PI declared by the other 
product. Think of it as a CYA measure.  :)

TANSTAAFL
Rasyr (Tim Dugger)
 System Editor
 Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com
 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l


Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations

2005-08-12 Thread GreenRonin




In a message dated 8/12/2005 11:03:33 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 12 
  Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote: I don't recall 
  bibliographies being specifically banned by the OGL.But other people's 
  trademarks and such are, and that can very definitely include book titles, 
  and company names.

The OGL forbids you fromindicating "compatibility or co-adaptability" 
with other companies' Trademarks, neither of which a Bibliography does. They are 
just fine for OGL books. 

Chris Pramas
Green Ronin
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l


Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations

2005-08-12 Thread Spike Y Jones
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:07:12 -0500
 Tim Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 12 Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote:
 
   This way you are officially declaring the source of your terms,
   which also indicates that you are NOT using anybody else's PI.
  
  Depending on which reading of the PI terms of the license you go
  with, doing this isn't necessarily going to get you anywhere.
 
 It will however be the start of a path that indicates that what 
 somebody else declared as PI is not the source of your use of those
 terms. And that will help in case there is an issue over it.

Unfortunately, one of the two main readings of the PI terms of the
OGL is that you, by borrowing *any* OGC from some other publisher,
agree not to use *any* terms that he claims as PI, whether you could
source those from elsewhere or not. If the judge doesn't agree with
your reading of the OGL, then your sidebar won't give you much cover.

Spike Y Jones
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l


RE: [Ogf-l] PI declarations

2005-08-12 Thread Highmoon Media Productions
Ian Sturrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fan momentHello, Ian. Great job with the game. Love it!/fan moment

Yeah, my reading of the license allows a company to do what Mongoose (or Rebellion, the Slaine IP owners) seem to have done here -- to prevent other companies from using a load of essentially public domain terms in d20products by declaring the names Product Identity (whether or not one usesthe game mechanics from the game system). 
I know some have read the license that way, but that doesn't make any sense. If that was the case, I could publish an OGL product with every word in the Oxford English Dictionary and then claim them all as PI, thus negating their use in further OGl products without my permission, which is, obviously, ridiculous.
My reading of PI has always been that you can protect terms that are unique to the product in question, but public domain terms are, essentially, immune to the OGL because even if someone claimed them as PI, one can always go back to the public domain source.








Daniel M. PerezHighmoon Media Productionswww.HighmoonMedia.com 

Products available at: Digital Book Booth,DriveThruRPG.com, e23,RPGnow.com__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l


Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations

2005-08-12 Thread Spike Y Jones
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
 Highmoon Media Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Ian Sturrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Yeah, my reading of the license allows a company to do what
 Mongoose (or Rebellion, the Slaine IP owners) seem to have done
 here -- to prevent other companies from using a load of
essentially
 public domain terms in d20 products by declaring the names
 Product Identity (whether or not one uses
 the game mechanics from the game system). 
 
 I know some have read the license that way, but that doesn't make
 any sense. If that was the case, I could publish an OGL product
 with every word in the Oxford English Dictionary and then claim
 them all as PI, thus negating their use in further OGl products
 without my permission, which is, obviously, ridiculous.

There are two problems being conflated here.

The first is whether or not I can declare public domain words as PI
and thereby prevent you from using them in OGL books that borrow OGC
from my book.

The second is whether or not I can declare words (public domain or
otherwise) as PI and thereby prevent you from using them in OGL books
even if you'd never seen my book.

Only if you accept the most extreme position in both these cases is
the declaring the OED PI tactic a problem for anyone. 

But some people have argued for more limited readings that *do* make
sense and that would still cause you problems if a judge agrees.

Spike Y Jones
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l


Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations

2005-08-12 Thread Clark Peterson
I agree with you 100%. The Slaine name they are
PIing is their version. They cant PI a name and take
that name for all time and in all incarnations.

Clark

--- Highmoon Media Productions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 I am writing a Celtic themed product, and using OGC
 material from Mongoose's Slaine RPG. The PI
 declaration lists a number of terms they claim as
 PI, and I have a problem with it. While some of the
 various terms claimed as PI are certainly unique to
 the Slaine series, there are others that are part
 and parcel of Celtic myth and lit. The following
 terms all are claimed as PI and also appear in my
 Oxford Dictionary of Celtic Mythology:
 
 Slaine, Warp Spasm, Tir Nan Og, Fomorian, Red
 Branch, Fir Bolg, Enech*, Cromlech.
 
 Slaine is a character in the early stories. Warp
 spasms are traced to Cuchulainn, though he wasn't
 the only hero to become distorted during a rage. Tir
 Nan Og is the mythical Land of Youth; though the
 common Irish spelling is Tir na nOg, Tir nan Og (or
 Tir Nan Og in some cases) is the Scottish Gaelic
 spelling (as an aside, the book also claims Land of
 the Young as PI, and while my dictionary lists only
 Land of Youth or Land of the Ever-Young, I have
 certainly seen Tir nan Og called Land of the Young
 in other academic works). Fomorian is the name of a
 mythic Celtic race, as is Fir Bolg (or its alternate
 spelling, Firbolg). The Red Branch is an older name
 for the Ulster cycle, and a popular name for the
 band of warriors based out of Emain Macha. Enech is
 the old Irish word for face (as in saving face or
 honor). Cromlech is another Gaelic word (more used
 in Wales and Cornwall, though not exclusively) for
 dolmens.
 
 The only thing I can think of is that I can't use
 the Slaine's universe interpretation of these terms,
 but I don't see any way in which they could stop me
 from using these terms simply as terms; that would
 be like me claiming as PI Olympus, Achilles and so
 forth. 
 
 Personally I have a mind to simply ignore the PI
 declaration as it applies to these terms, which have
 obviously been in use before the Slaine comic or the
 game, but I wanted to ask for thoughts on the
 matter.
 
 
 
 Daniel M. Perez
 Highmoon Media Productions
 www.HighmoonMedia.com 
  
 Products available at: Digital Book Booth,
 DriveThruRPG.com, e23, RPGnow.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 __
 Do You Yahoo!?
 Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
 protection around 
 http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
 Ogf-l mailing list
 Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org

http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
 



___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l


Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations

2005-08-12 Thread Clark Peterson
It's my opinion, it is Ryan's opinion, and it is the
only reading of the license that makes any reasonable
sense. 

Obviously, like everything else with the OGL, there is
no official pronouncement on anything :)

Clark

--- Spike Y Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
  Clark Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  They absolutely cannot do that (prevent you from
 using
  public domain names). They can PI the name, but it
 is
  only as to that NPC or person from their product. 
  You have every right to use those names you want
 to
  use, presuming they have a public domain origin.
  
  Mongoose, or any other publisher, cant gobble up
  public domain names by declaring them as PI. If
 the
  names are public domain, then you have a source
 for
  them (the public domain) aside from Mongoose's
 content
  and thus you can use them freely.
 
 Is this your opinion (which I agree with, by the
 way) or has this
 been officially declared to be the correct
 interpretation of the
 ambiguous license terms by WotC and/or a court of
 law?
 
 Spike Y Jones
 ___
 Ogf-l mailing list
 Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org

http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
 



___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l


RE: [Ogf-l] PI declarations

2005-08-12 Thread Highmoon Media Productions
GRIM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:











I wouldn’t be 100% about a couple of those terms.
I’d check with Rebellion Software (Owners of 2000AD from which Slaine derives) as well or first. Since they licensed out the IP and have a hell of a lot more legal clout than any RPG company you’ll need to watch your step. They’re nice, reasonable guys though.
On some of the other terms on the PI list, I am very clear that they are unique to the Slaine comic and IP. The ones I listed, however, except for spelling variations that are not present in the dictionary I use (but that I have seen used in other sources), I am entirely confident that they derive from public domain sources. 

If anything, the one doubt I have is the following:
They are claiming "Slaine" as IP. The stats of the character are OGC. I go ahead and reuse those exact stats in my product for an NPC. Can I call that NPC Slaine? The name derives from public domain, but is the combination of the name and the stats (the specific interpretation of the character Slaine as far as the rules of the RPG go) legal within the parameters of the OGL?








Daniel M. PerezHighmoon Media Productionswww.HighmoonMedia.com 

Products available at: Digital Book Booth,DriveThruRPG.com, e23,RPGnow.com
		 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 

gif5LCycqajv0.gif
Description: GIF image
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l


Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations

2005-08-12 Thread spikeyj
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Clark Peterson wrote:

 I'd be surprised if Mongoose even felt you needed to
 ask permission to use words that are obviously in the
 public domain (and obviously I am only talking about
 words and names that are actually in the public
 domain).

I agree with you that reasonable people would come to the conclusion
that the OGL doesn't allow you to successfully shut public domain
words away from use by OGL publishers. But the fact that Mongoose
sought fit to include a bunch of public domain words in its PI
declaration, though, makes me wonder if Mongoose has a different
interpretation of the license, or if they were forced to put those
words on the list by their licensor (despite secretly know that it was
unenforceable). I mean, if we rule out incompetence, insanity, and
spite for the IP declaration, then there must be *some* reason by
Mongoose went through these motions, mustn't there?

Spike Y Jones

___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l