RE: [OGF-L] Work=OGC+PI+nothing else?
This is based on the verbatim statements of the license saying that any work covered by the license is OGC except for the parts that are PI. I think you could argue that the license says a few things about OGC and we should evaluate these statements together to arrive at a different conclusion. I'll make my argument by quoting the section of the license and then commenting on it. 1(d) - Open Game Content means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity Here I'm focusing in on clearly identified as OGC by the Contributor as an operative phrase. There is a requirement to identify OGC. I think you can argue that the default condition of any text in a work covered by the OGL is that the content is closed. It become OGC only when an explicit declaration is made identifying what content is OGC (which can be accompanied by a declaration of PI that would otherwise be embedded in the OGC). 2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License Here we see that the license to reuse the content only applies to the OGC. It doesn't use the word work, because other conditions of the OGL apply to the work but the license to use the content only apply to the OGC in the work. 7. ...with a work containing Open Game Content... This one is pretty explicit in my mind. The work CONTAINS OGC, not the work IS OGC. I think this example says that the work is a superset of OGC so there exists the possibility that the work also contains other material. 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. Again, portions of the work are OGC and therefore portions are not. Now going back to the definition of PI to see if room exists for something to be not OGC and not PI... 1(e) - Product Identity means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; [more examples]; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; To be PI it has to be clearly identified as such. It can be embedded in OGC and declaring it PI excludes it from the OGC in which it is found. If you create a work that contains OGC and declare chapter 4 to be OGC and the name Weldon to be PI, stuff that appears outside of chapter 4 is not declared to be OGC and is not identified as PI. What is it? I think it's other content that is covered under normal copyright law, is not allowed to be reused under the OGL, but that must still adhere to the other restrictions/conditions of the OGL to not use trademarks, etc. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third PartyBeneficiaries?)
Are there rights for third party beneficiaries under the license? I would think that a third party could sue a publisher to challenge Section 5, Representation of Authority to Contribute. They could argue that the publisher did not have authority to contribute because they don't own the material in question and don't have a license to use it. Really it would fall under copyright law, but if it were me I would name the infringing product AND Section 5 as a breach of copyright law. The owner isn't exactly suing for a breach of the OGL, but the owner is suing because the infringing publisher's representation that they own the material in the OGL is a second example of illegal use of the copyrighted material. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third PartyBeneficiaries?)
From: Chris Helton Have you ever heard of copyright and/or trademark infringement? It happens all the time, and all that the OGL does is hardwire it into the license. The OGL doesn't define copyright and trademark infringement. It only says that trademarks are also eligible to be PI if marked as such. It then says what you can and can't do with PI. The license also says that you can't use trademarks to indicate compatability without express permission to do so. At no point does the OGL even attempt to identify infringing uses of copyright or trademarks under US law. And yes, by registering something as copyright or a trademark you are creating product identity, whether you have anything to do with the OGL or not. I disagree. PI only has meaning within the context of licensed works. If I use copyrighted material or a trademark in my OGL work, you can sue me for copyright or trademark infringement, not for breach of the OGL. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third PartyBeneficiaries?)
-Original Message- From: Chris Helton For the last time, I have never said that PI doesn't have to be identified. Saying that there is other forms of PI (as defined be the license) does not mean that you do not have to declare PI. That is just not the only type of PI that a publisher has to be congizent of. Well, you've lost me too. The license says that any material that is eligible to be PI must be declared to be PI and must be excluded from OGC to actually be PI. It must also appear in a work licensed under the OGL to be covered by the OGL. Under what conditions can something be PI without meeting these conditions and being covered under the OGL? ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
-Original Message- From: Chris Helton This is the definition of Product Identity that I have been using all along. You will notice that since it contains the phrase and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content that I do understand that declared PI is a part of PI. What I have been saying, and I am not sure how much more clearly I can say it, is that the PI declaration is not the only PI that exists under the OGL. OK. I get it. You're reading this section of the license in a completely different way than me (and I would say everyone else). I read the license to say that there is a list of things that can be PI and that list is inclusive up to registered trademark at which point the license says what you must do to make those things PI. All of those things that could be PI up to and including registered trademarks must be clearly identified and specifically exclude OGC. So in my interpretation, there is no PI unless it is clearly identified. It's not just one way to be PI, it's the only way. In fact, since PI only has meaning within the license, you could say that PI must appear in the licensed work such that it would be OGC if it were not otherwise identified as PI. For example, if you declare chapter 2 (and only chapter 2) to be OGC then a name that appears only in chapter 1 is not PI because it's not included in OGC and doesn't need to be excluded from OGC by being clearly identified as PI. In this scenario, the name is just copyrighted material that is not OGC. This is the current interpretation on this list and is shared by the majority of large publishers that post here. You will notice that this section does not only include PI that has been declared to be so, but actually anything that is defined as PI under section 1(e) of the license. This is all that have have been saying all along. Section 1 says PI must be clearly identified to be such. This is the heart of our disagreement. Once again, I will state that I am not trying to impose my interpretation of the OGL on anyone and that what I am interpresting only has to do with me. Fair enough, but maybe you should read the OGL faq to see where I get my interpretation. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
-Original Message- From: avatar of Darkness Not saying which interpretation of that line is right or wrong, but it would seem to me that if Chris' interpretation is correct you wouldn't have to mark it as PI.. its simple ommision from the Open Content of the product would seem to be enough. Prevailing wisdom is that there are three types of content in a work covered by the OGL. Material must be identified as OGC to be open (section 8) so there exists the possibility that there is content that is not identified as OGC. This second type is just normal copyrighted material that is not licensed. The third type is Product Identity which specifically means material that is included in OGC but is meant to be explicitly excluded from the terms of the license for open material. If material is ommitted from OGC (meaning it doesn't appear in a section of OGC material), it can't be PI. That material would be the second type of normal, non-open content. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
-Original Message- From: avatar of Darkness Because of that, there is pleanty of legal ground to argue that the OGL covers an entire work and that material within that work is either OGC or PI. If you check the license there is no description of what Other stuff not covered by the license would look like or how to handle it. The argument isn't that the material is not covered by the license. The argument is that the terms of the license to reuse open content only applies to content that is clearly identified as open (which is what the license says). PI is content that is explicitly excluded from OGC because otherwise the OGC designation would include it. There is an implication of a third type of content that is not designated as OGC or PI and is therefore non-open. The license does not require you to cleary identify non-open material. It only requires that you identify OGC or PI. The ommission is purposeful and allows for this third type of content. Basically the license says, any content not clearly identified as being licensed is not licensed. It thus protects the author from unwittingly releasing material as open that is not clearly identified as open. The clearly identified requirement is very clear and must be explicitly made for both OGC and PI. Anything that is not clearly identified or designated as OGC or PI is non-open. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
