Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Does it matter? Doesn't the license have to stand on its own as a legal document? If we have to bring in the author (well, impetus for authorship--i believe Ryan's said that lawyers drafted the final license, based on his impetus and various internal discussions at WotC) to figure out what the license means, is that really valid? Oh goodness, dont tell lawyers and english teachers that! Lawuers look at legislative intent and intent of the framers and things like that all the time. And english teachers (particularly cheesy PHD types :) ) spend their waking hours trying to figure out what the author meant and then deconstructing it anyway. Sure, what the drafters intended is important for our exercise: trying to figure out what the OGL means. So to the extent Ryan can offer insight and guidance to our practical use of the license it is useful. If you ask the quesiton could Ryan come in to court to testify about what the license 'meant' maybe the answer is no. But that isnt what we are doing here. So, IMHO, the view of the drafter(s) is very important. But I agree that on the flip side, the license is the license and is subject to several interpretations. Which is what we are all here talking about. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Supreme Court precedent on the matter says that for contracts, and particularly for contracts of adhesion (contracts which are drafted by one party and presented on a take it or leave it basis without negotation), which this is, any vague area of the contract should be construed against the drafter if there is a disagreement between the drafter and another party. This is absolutely, indesputibly NOT a contract of adhesion. It is a license. Plain and simple. The doctrines underpinning the contract of adhesion issue just are not present here. Take it or leave it and drafted by one party are not the sole issues. There also must be an inequity as a result of relationships that makes something inherently unfair. There is nothing inherently unfair about the OGL. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Before anyone gets too mad at anyone else can we all just agree that this is open to interpretation and we all wish the language of the license had been a little clearer. :) I several reasonable views here. Now, I prefer mine but that is just me. I can see Lee's point. IMHO, that only isolates the definition (which seems poorly worded to me) and seems to ignore the other sections of the license. But then if you take my view, there is sure a good chunk of support for the contrary position in the very definition. That is why I tried for an interpretation that harmonizes the various inconsistencies and that doesnt make things default OGC. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:00:29 -0400 Doug Meerschaert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And I'm not willing to come to that conclusion simply so that I can say, see there is a third type of content inside a covered work. So, rather than take the interpretation that the industry has adopted, you prefer one that has almost exactly the same effect? I'm not so sure the industry has adopted the same interpretation as Ryan says it was supposed to. There are many companies who haven't adopted that interpretation (or if they have, then they're been deliberately breaching the license), but I haven't taken a survey to see which interpretation is in the majority. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/6/2005 2:26:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMHO, that only isolates the definition (which seems poorly worded to me) and seems to ignore the other sections of the license. I'm not isolating the other parts of the contract. Section #8 is simply a reiteration on one part of the OGC definition. So, in my mind, you can resolve this by looking at the OGC definition itself. Set theory says that the section of the definition I'm quoting should be a Superset of the other parts of the definition, Clark. I still haven't seen you actually cite ANY meaning of: "OGC means any work covered by the License excluding PI". What meaning do you give that phrase? Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:21:16 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still haven't seen you actually cite ANY meaning of: OGC means any work covered by the License excluding PI. What meaning do you give that phrase? Tim won't give you a meaning of that phrase, because he disputes the validity of your parsing of that part of the license to come up with the phrase in the first place. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/6/2005 11:16:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That phrase doesnt exist in the OGL. That is your paraphrasing and shortening up of the language. Which, IMHO, is pretty good support for my position that you are ignoring other parts of the license, including language from the definition itself. It says OGC means X and OGC means Y and OGC means "any work covered by the license, including translations and derivative works, but excluding Product Identity". It's the equivalent of saying: OGC means all the following -- 1) mechanics that are an enhancement over the prior art, excluding PI; AND 2) thing you clearly identify as OGC; AND 3) any work covered by the license, including translations and derivative works, but excluding PI All I've really done is keep the meaning the same, but reformat the definition using numbered points. The phrase "including translations and derivative works" is effectively a subset of "any work covered by the license", so #3 above can readily be simplified to: "any work covered by the License, but excluding PI". That's one of the 3 things that OGC means. Now the other two seem, by set theory, to be logical subsets of #3. Even if you disagree that the other two are subsets of the third (and I don't see how you logically can, but I'm open to an explanation), that still means you need to give full weight to #3. I don't see that I'm engaging in creative cutting and pasting. It seems that the definition of OGC means 3 separate things, one of which I'm querying about. It exists. This seems unambiguous to me. Now what do you think the words mean, Clark? Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Now what do you think the words mean, Clark? I'm just telling you how lawyers think. It isnt math. It isnt venn diagrams and sets and subsets. You can only read that phrase in conjuction with the entire phrase. I know what you are saying logically. I get that. But if you take your position and parse out the definition into three definitions as you do, then why do you need the first part of the definition? why do you even need the second part of the definition? if your interpretation is right, you dont. And lawyers dont read things that way. (dont mean that to be insulting, by the way, just a statement that lawyers look at things in silly ways). You try to give effect to the language. You dont want to read language a way that makes things a nullity. Plus, of your three definitions the first two are rather specific and the third is rather general. Which raises an interesting issue. But that is another thread. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
So, Clark, I'm back to the big question -- what does the third meaning of OGC mean if it doesn't mean what I think it means. I'm pretty much always willing to be proven wrong, particularly in IP law, provided that I learn something in the process. I do civil rights law lobbying and analysis for a living. I do contract law and IP law as a hobby (meaning I have no formal training in it). But, every time I read that definition, I come to one conclusion: the only way to reach a different conclusion from my own is to make the 3rd meaning of OGC vanish from the contract. Because it is the logical superset of the first two meanings. You give meaning to the first two parts, but you give largely redundant meaning. Is there a way to give non-redundant effect to EVERY part of the OGC definition in such a fashion that every work covered by the license doesn't contain 100% (OGC + PI)? I'm open to alternatives. Plus, of your "three definitions" the first two are rather specific and the third is rather general. Which raises an interesting issue. But that is another thread. Feel free to start an alternate thread. People will be intrigued, I'm certain. Thanks for sticking with the thread. I'm just looking for the details instead of the conclusions. I'm hoping that people start responding with the details -- what does each sub-type of OGC consist of? Are they distinct, or are some subsets of each other? Things like that. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Welcome to the law! Trying to harmonize something that isnt totally able to be harmonized. I agree the license says what it says. But here is why your interpretation is problematic: 1. it gobbles up all other definitions. The law doesnt like that. 2. It seems to default everything to open content, while at the same time another part of the license requires OGC to be clearly defined. That is inherently contradictory. 3. The definition you reference is general (a broad statement), whereas the requirement to clearly identify seems rather specific. The specific will control over the general. Bottom line: yes, there is a problem with the wording in the license that is causing all of us confusion. I agree. Clark --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, Clark, I'm back to the big question -- what does the third meaning of OGC mean if it doesn't mean what I think it means. I'm pretty much always willing to be proven wrong, particularly in IP law, provided that I learn something in the process. I do civil rights law lobbying and analysis for a living. I do contract law and IP law as a hobby (meaning I have no formal training in it). But, every time I read that definition, I come to one conclusion: the only way to reach a different conclusion from my own is to make the 3rd meaning of OGC vanish from the contract. Because it is the logical superset of the first two meanings. You give meaning to the first two parts, but you give largely redundant meaning. Is there a way to give non-redundant effect to EVERY part of the OGC definition in such a fashion that every work covered by the license doesn't contain 100% (OGC + PI)? I'm open to alternatives. Plus, of your three definitions the first two are rather specific and the third is rather general. Which raises an interesting issue. But that is another thread. Feel free to start an alternate thread. People will be intrigued, I'm certain. Thanks for sticking with the thread. I'm just looking for the details instead of the conclusions. I'm hoping that people start responding with the details -- what does each sub-type of OGC consist of? Are they distinct, or are some subsets of each other? Things like that. Lee ___ 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] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/6/2005 2:07:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. it gobbles up all other definitions. The law doesnt like that. There are redundancies directly built into the license. Section #8 is little more than a restatement of one of the types of OGC in 1d. And in the statement "any work covered by the license, including translations and derivative works" the latter clause is a redundant reinforcement, because "any work" logically includes, as a subset, translations and derivative works. You seem to be complaining that my reading makes part of the license redundant, when part of 1d is already redundant with another part of the license due to poor draftsmanship. Reading things as redundant is not the same as giving them no effect. Two parts of a contract can have substantially the same effect without creating a contractual conflict. Indeed the second meaning for OGC and Section 8 are examples of just that -- redundancies that can co-exist. 2. It seems to default everything to open content, while at the same time another part of the license requires OGC to be clearly defined. That is inherently contradictory. It is not, in fact, contradictory. Under set theory and logic, all parts of Section 1d and Section 8 resolve per my reading of the license. Nothing is inherently contradictory. If I give you a paint by numbers that has areas numbered 1, 2, and 3, and I say: a) Color any one area except one numbered 3 with green; AND b) You must color all of section 3 in black and may use no black anywhere else; and c) Color all of the drawing green except those parts that are black Well, that logically resolves. Two of the instructions overlap redundantly, but that doesn't give rise to an actual conflict, the instructions can co-exist. If you wrote a computer program to do this, it would not create an error. That's a test for an actual conflict of logic. I see none. 3. The definition you reference is general (a broad statement), whereas the requirement to clearly identify seems rather specific. The specific will control over the general. Even where they don't conflict, but where they can happily co-exist? Set theory and basic logic says there is no conflict of the instructions the way I am interpreting things. At, law, the specific only controls the general where there is a conflict of a specific law and a general law. Where they can both happily co-exist, the general is still applicable. At least to my understanding of that paradigm. Maybe I don't understand that legal paradigm (again, I'm a policy analyst and lobbyist, not a lawyer). Lastly, I still remain baffled as to what you feel "OGC... means any work covered by the license.. excluding the parts that are PI" signifies. That's the third meaning for OGC. What meaning do you give it, explicitly? No meaning at all? A meaning that conflicts with something else and loses out? I think you are seeing internal conflicts in the license, where I am seeing (in this one instance) finally an area where there is no conflict, but only some redundancies. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/6/2005 2:56:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not just reduncancies, nullities. There is no need to spell out the specifics if your reading is correct. So, back to my big question -- what signficance do you think we should give to the third OGC meaning? Because your reading seems to also nullify that. And therein lies one reason why I do not fully share your perspective, yet. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/4/2005 3:51:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a required interpretation. Otherwise, it would be possible to put the things that we didn't want you to be able say like "This product is compatible with Dungeons Dragons(R)" on the cover and claim that it was not a part of the "work" covered by the OGL. No. It would not. You can't advertise compatibility "in conjunction with" a work covered by the license. This prohibition would prevent you from advertising compatibility on the cover of a magazine even if only one article were covered. My reading of copyright caselaw indicated that the courts view any commercial unit sold as a whole as a "work" for the purposes of copyright licenses. 3 booklets sold in a box is a "work". A magazine featuring many articles is a "work". A magazine also contains individual works, Ryan. Each article, if it contains its own copyright, is a work. Works can contain other works. Every collection of poems I have is a work that contains other sub-works. Nothing in the license requires that the outermost work be the one the license is applied to. You should be able to apply it to anything copyright law treats as a work -- such as a poem, an article, etc. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/4/2005 3:51:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A magazine featuring many articles is a "work". Just to prove my point further, Ryan -- here's a definition from Title 17: A “collective work” is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. See. In a collective work, there is an encompassing work (which gains copyrightability extending only to its section, presentation, and organization of its internal contents, along with any new content it adds). There are also individual works within it. There is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING in the OGL that says for a collective work you can't apply the license to an individual sub-work. All that's required by implication from the license, is that you apply the license to a work, and that can be an article in a magazine, without applying the license to the encompassing collective work. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
On 5 Sep 2005 at 4:24, Thomas Kyle wrote: Well, the general consensus (at least of those closest to the OGL, and several others in this discussion) is that anything in the third category of non-OGC non-PI still _isn't_ usable under the OGL, which seems to be very similar to the concept of PI (in that it can't be reused/redistributed). Correct, OGC is the only bits that are allowed to be re-used. The definition of PI was created so that there was a method of having material that was not OGC mixed in with the OGC (i.e. such as the name of an iconic character - the character's stats are OGC, but his name is PI). 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] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/5/2005 1:28:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I dont buy the "OGC by default" argument. I don't know if "by default" is the appropriate word. I've only claimed that you must declare as OGC everything that you don't declare as PI. What is your interpretation of: "OGC... means any work covered by the License... excluding product identity." This implies to me, that if there is no Product Identity that the work covered by the license is 100% OGC. I don't see any other reasonable construction of this definition. Do you? What is it? Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
I'm going to dissect the definition below and show it applied to a sample work of fiction. Here's the whole definition. "'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." OK, so let's dissect this with an example. I have a work of fiction that I'm going to apply to the OGL. It contains no game mechanics. This shortens the effective definition to: "'Open Game Content' means 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." Next, its not a derivative work or a translation. This shortens the definition to: "'Open Game Content' means any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, but specifically excludes Product Identity." Let's say there's no Product Identity. Well the definition shortens to: "'Open Game Content' means any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License." At this point OGC means two things: 1) anything I mark as OGC, AND 2) the work covered by the license Since Section #8 requires me to mark all my OGC, I have to mark it so that both of the above are true, in order to fulfill the definition. part 1 of the remainder of the OGC definition is automatically fulfilled by Section #8. So now I have to make Section #8 work with part 2 of the remaining OGC definition: I have to mark "the work covered by the License" as OGC. If you want to give effect to the phrase that "OGC means the work covered by the License" there is only one obvious reading. You can't just nay-say this out of existence. If you are looking for a counter-argument you'd have to argue about the definition of the word "covered". I think it's self-explanatory, but since it ain't defined, if there's any wiggle room for a conclusion opposite to my own, it would have to leverage the phrase "covered" somehow to be construed as an alternate possibly valid alternative. Currently Tim and Clark keep saying that they don't agree, but they haven't posted any interpretation which gives effect to "OGC means any work covered by the License". I don't think any nay-saying is a valid critique until it presents a reasonable interpretation of this part of the License. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
On 5 Sep 2005 at 9:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/5/2005 1:28:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I dont buy the OGC by default argument. I don't know if by default is the appropriate word. I've only claimed that you must declare as OGC everything that you don't declare as PI. No, you actually have claimed that anything under the license is automatically (which pretty much equals the term by default) OGC, except for what is PI. At least that is what you said on the rpg.net thread. What is your interpretation of: OGC... means any work covered by the License... excluding product identity. This is where I am having problems. You are taking only a portion of the definition given and attempting to make it the only definition, ignoring the rest of the definition, and pretty much ignoring the rest of the license where the phrasing tends to counter any possible interpretation other than the one you are attempting to apply. You cannot ignore the rest of the definition, which actually comes before that small part you continually quote. This implies to me, that if there is no Product Identity that the work covered by the license is 100% OGC. I don't see any other reasonable construction of this definition. Do you? What is it? This apparently implies to you that if there is not a PI declaration, that no matter what the OGC declaration, that OGC declaration is wrong unless it is for 100% OGC. Let's take a magazine as an example of my interpretation. Using my interpretation, the whole magazine is covered by the license. The magazine declares three articles as OGC. It then declares the names of characters and place names used within the articles as PI. So what is the rest of the magazine? Under my interpretation, it is non-open (closed) content (meaning that it cannot be re-used - even through the fair use clauses available in copyright law if you are using the OGL). It doesn't have to be declared because it is not OGC, nor is it PI. It is the default state of content (caveat - content based upon the SRD or other OGC works is automatically open, and is required to be declared as such) within the covered work. Under your interpretation, it would seem that the magazine would require a separate copy of the OGL for each of the articles. 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] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/5/2005 11:31:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, you actually have claimed that anything under the license is automatically (which pretty much equals the term "by default") OGC, except for what is PI. At least that is what you said on the rpg.net thread. It's sort of question whether "automatically" is an appropriate choice of words. Even if I used it before it's sort of misleading, since you have a choice of what you PI, then nominally you have a choice of what is OGC in some cases. Where you make no choices about PI, however, then yes, it's pretty much automatically OGC. This is where I am having problems. You are taking only a portion of the definition given and attempting to make it the only definition, ignoring the rest of the definition, and pretty much ignoring the rest of the license where the phrasing tends to counter any possible interpretation other than the one you are attempting to apply. You cannot ignore the rest of the definition, which actually comes before that small part you continually quote. No, I'm not ignoring the rest of the definition, Tim. Every time the word "means" is used, as in the form, "OGC means X, and OGC means Y, and OGC means Z" then "means" can be interpreted as "includes". "OGC includes X, and OGC includes Y, and OGC includes Z, but OGC excludes Product Identity". Using the basic logic of set theory, you build a merged union of each include and subtract out the exclude. In doing so, you'll see that the part that say "OGC means any work covered by the license" is a superset of all the other things on the list that OGC includes and therefore, by definition, reference to the superset automatically includes all subsets of the supersets by set theory. So, I'm not ignoring other parts of the definition at all. I'm just appying basic set theory and determining that one of the phrases creates a superset which all the other parts are subsets of. Therefore there's no particular reason to refer to the subsets. This apparently implies to you that if there is not a PI declaration, that no matter what the OGC declaration, that OGC declaration is wrong unless it is for 100% OGC. Correct. Using my interpretation, the whole magazine is covered by the license. The magazine declares three articles as OGC. It then declares the names of characters and place names used within the articles as PI. You've used the license incorrectly. You should apply the license so that it covers each of the three articles and has OGC + PI declarations for the articles. Each article is a work, and the magazine is an encompassing work. So you can apply the license to each sub-work individually without applying the license to the magazine. Under your interpretation, it would seem that the magazine would require a separate copy of the OGL for each of the articles. Not necessarily. I could apply the OGL to the whole magazine if I wanted, and then apply a PI definition that covers all but three articles. And then create OGC and PI definitions for the three articles. That would render 100% of the covered work OGC + PI. Again, you keep debating my interpretation, Tim, but one of the individual meanings for OGC is: "OGC means any work covered by the License, excluding Product Identity". You have yet, after umpteen debating posts, unless I've missed something, you've completely ignored this line and have anted up no alternate interpretation of this line. You are busy pretending like it doesn't exist. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 17:20 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Doug Meerschaert wrote: But Ryan just said that the intent of the OGL is that everything from cover to cover (including the covers) is the covered work, and we He has also, in the past, asserted that a website is similarly hosed. If you have a single OGL document, the entire site is contaminated. If he's recanted this particular absurdity, I do not know. -- David Bolack [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
The entire site, or just that sub-directory? It was my understanding that, if you had a site, and a folder called /gaming_stuff/, and that folder contained OGC material and but one instance of the OGL (as opposed to the OGL on every page where OGC occurred), then everything within that sub-directory was covered. Paul W. King -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Bolack Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 2:57 PM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license He has also, in the past, asserted that a website is similarly hosed. If you have a single OGL document, the entire site is contaminated. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/2005 ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Tim Dugger wrote: On 4 Sep 2005 at 17:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you're saying that Ryan's interpretation is correct and that Lee's interpretation is wrong. hehe... You know, I am not sure anymore Seriously, I do think that the entire product is a covered work, so I guess that yes, I am agreeing with Ryan in this instance (will wonders never cease...). However, I don't seem to recall Ryan stating whether there are only 2 types of content in a covered work or three (maybe I missed that part). Does it matter? Doesn't the license have to stand on its own as a legal document? If we have to bring in the author (well, impetus for authorship--i believe Ryan's said that lawyers drafted the final license, based on his impetus and various internal discussions at WotC) to figure out what the license means, is that really valid? In hindsight, I am thinking that perhaps the license is missing a definition for something that should perhaps be called Proprietory Content (PC) that cannot be used by others and falls under normal copyright except as prohibited by other portions of the license (such as declaring compatibility), and define it as all content not declared as OGC or PI. If it had such a definition, then this discussion would not be taking place. Yep. And the fact that it doesn't is part of what makes me think that one of 4 things is true: --There is no third type of content *as far as the license is concerned*--but the license need not be applied to the entirety of the work as generally considered. [Ignoring all discussions about the license, and pronouncements by Ryan and WotC, this seems to me to be the most internally-consistent reading. It only requires that some of the clauses be redundant--perhaps there for emphasis--rather than that any portions be ignored or glossed over.] --The license does apply to the whole work and there is no third sort of content. [Perhaps because the actual drafters (the lawyers) willfully or unintentionally misunderstood Ryan's intentions.] --The license authors were incompetent, or at least lazy/sloppy. [This interpretation is supported by the numerous simple grammar/punctuation errors that muddle up what could otherwise be perfectly-sensible clauses.] --It is simply too hard to mix virally-open content and conventional copyright law and powerful trademark-like protections, and account for the vagaries of current publication and various media. [Open-content license? Easy. Trademark licensing? Easy. Content licensing? Easy. Dealing with books and magazines? Easy. All of the above, at once, plus handling web enhancements and boxed sets and multiple books in a line--all while dealing with a content that has an ambiguous status WRT conventional IP laws? Not so easy. I mean, we don't even know for certain how much ownership/protection RPGs enjoy before you introduce the WotC OGL. And i'm fairly certain that, while virally-open licenses have been tested in court at least a bit, the concept of other restrictions tagging along with the open content--restrictions that are actually tighter than conventional IP law--hasn't. Not to mention the fact that the smaller the bit of text, the less applicable copyright is, yet the WotC OGL, like all copyleft licenses, rests on copyright--so how much power does it have when it starts to talk about small chunks of text that, were they not embodied in a larger work, wouldn't enjoy copyright protection? Copyrights isn't about ownership of ideas, it's about reproduction of presentations of those ideas. But the WotC OGL wants to talk about ideas, it seems.] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Doug Meerschaert wrote: Nope. Anything not identified as required in Section #8 and also not noted as Product Identity is third type of content. Find me anything in the license itself that supports this. Sure, there're discussions on this list--mostly attempts to make sense of seeming contradictions; there are Ryan's [the author or at least impetus] postings; there's the WotC FAQ. But is there anything in the license itself that actually says that? I've long suspected that that was the intended meaning of the license, but that a mistake was made along the way, and it doesn't actually say that. I'd be genuinely surprised if an IP attorney, with zero previous contact with the license, and without prompting or leading questions, would conclude on reading it that it both applied to the work as a whole (as opposed to some subset work) and allowed non-OGC non-PI content. And, yes, that might undermine the various prohibitions of the WotC OGL and the D20STL. OTOH, most of those prohibitions are phrased to include in conjunction with type prohibitions. Even if only half the chapters of a book are covered by the license, i'd say it's a pretty safe bet that breaking the license's rules in another of the chapters would be construed as doing so in conjunction with the covered work. And i have no idea what happens in a court of law if there's a contract dispute and the author says i intended the license to mean X and a witness says i knew the license was supposed to mean X, so used it that way and the defendant says i don't know what he intended, the license clearly means Y, and that's what i did. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Tim Dugger wrote: On 4 Sep 2005 at 16:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If this is the case, then there's no such thing as the third type of content and a whole bunch of stuff has been published under the OGL using an incorrect interpretation of the license. I wonder if the fact that WotC hasn't taken any steps in the past five years to correct this misinterpretation would work against the company if it tried to start enforcing this interpretation now. I view it as squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are square. You have a work, as defined by Ryan to be an entire product from cover to cover. In this work you are required to declare what is OGC, and to declare what is PI. However, there is nothing in the license that says the entire work IS OGC unless it is declared PI. My interpretation is that the work contains OGC, PI, and anything else not declared by the first two. That anything else is still bound by the OGL, especially where the OGL superceeds copyright law. That anything else can include such things as public domain material (such as the names of the Norse Gods). If the entire work were considered to be OGC, except for what was declared PI, then there would be absolutely no reason to declare what is OGC, as it would be implicit that if it is not declared as PI it would be OGC. However, this interpretation fails because it is possible to incude public domain material (such as the names of Norse gods) in a work. Since the names are public domain, they cannot be declared OGC nor PI because the contributor does not own the rights to declare it as one or the other, and if a work contains only 2 types of content (OGC PI), then it would be impossible to use any public domain material within a covered work. Thus, any work which included such would be in violation of the OGL Alternately, you can declare Thor as PI or OGC. And someone would therefore be required to not use, or make OGC, respectively,your version of the word Thor. They could, alternately, choose a different source if one were available--like, oh, say, PD. Since authority to contribute is not explicitly defined, and exactly what you are prohibited from WRT PI is not explicitly defined, and what authority, if any, you need to declare PI is not explicitly defined, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that you could declare a PD element as either OGC or PI, and thus force those who derive from it to treat it as such. And equally reasonable, and in no way a contradiction, to say that those very same people could instead cite the PD--rather than your work-- as their source for those specific elements. Let me use an alternate, and hopefully less-muddled, example. Let us suppose for a moment that the vitality/wounds system in Spycraft is closed content, that the same system in Uneathed Arcana is OGC, and that the Star Wars D20 game had been released under the WotC OGL and the vitality/wounds system there had been declared PI. Further, assume that the systems are identical (rather than nearly-identical). I believe that you could cite Spycraft and UA in your Sec.15, and use the vitality/wounds system. The fact that it is not available to you via Spycraft doesn't prevent you using the identical content via UA. Moreover, IMHO, you could cite UA and Star Wars D20 in your Sec.15, and still use the vitality/wounds system, verbatim from UA, even though that would be identical in content to using it verbatim from Star Wars D20. That is, the power of the prohibitions of PI is only as great as the PI is unique. Likewise, the requirements of OGC are only as powerful as the OGC is unique--if you can reasonably invent the content in a way that makes you legitimate creator/owner, the fact that it *could have been* copied from or derived from someone else's OGC doesn't make it necessary to designate it OGC itself. As a concrete example of this, the starship construction system in T20: it could have been derived from the existing D20 System OGC. However, it actually was derived from the existing MegaTraveller/Traveller: tNE rules. Therefore, they were not required to make it OGC, and chose not to. Perfectly legitimately and legally, IMHO. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Tim Dugger wrote: By my reasoning, the license would not include the following clause -- 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. -- if the whole work were considered OGL just by applying the license to the work. To put it another way, Why do you have to clearly indicate which portions of the work are OGC if the whole work is considered to be OGC just by putting it with the license? Because the work, as far as the license is concerned, and the work, as far as the consumer/reuser is concerned, might not be the same unit. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For now, let's assume that we have one work, a book. Let's assume that it is wholly non-derivative. Let's assume that the person who wrote the book applies the OGL to it, and says, This book, in its entirety, is a single work covered by the Open Gaming License. Let's assume that the guy has no Product Identity. How much of the book must be OGC? In my opinion, 100%. As soon as you pick a work covered by the license, that work covers by the license contains only OGC and PI, or, if there's no PI, then it contains only OGC. Then a declaration that just says the text is 100% OGC, and doesn't say anything about the art, layout, trade dress, etc., is invalid? I write an RPG. I use the WotC OGL, and declare The entirety of the text of this work, save the index , table of contents, and credits, is Open Game Content. In your opinion, are you saying that my company trademark has just been declared OGC, because it wasn't declared PI? Or that it is automatically PI, because it wasn't declared OGC? That if i merely want others to be able to continue to use my trademark as they could under conventional IP laws, rather than be extra-restricted as they would be if it were PI, i have to explicitly include some sort of mini-license or permission? ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
David Bolack wrote: He has also, in the past, asserted that a website is similarly hosed. If you have a single OGL document, the entire site is contaminated. That sounds about right, actually. If your website has OGC on it, then you need to treat it all as a work under the OGL. That is, you can't use someone else's trademarks et al. DM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/2005 ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
woodelf wrote: Find me anything in the license itself that supports this. Section #7. ... in a work containting Open Gaming Content... Section #8: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content. Now, there are certain things that have to be OGC, possibly including all game rules in your product. But the license makes a lot more sense when you realize that non-game rule content doesn't have to be PI or OGC. DM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/2005 ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:20:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And i have no idea what happens in a court of law if there's a contract dispute and the author says "i intended the license to mean X" and a witness says "i knew the license was supposed to mean X, so used it that way" and the defendant says "i don't know what he intended, the license clearly means Y, and that's what i did". Supreme Court precedent on the matter says that for contracts, and particularly for contracts of adhesion (contracts which are drafted by one party and presented on a "take it or leave it" basis without negotation), which this is, any vague area of the contract should be construed against the drafter if there is a disagreement between the drafter and another party. Where there is no vague area, I doubt that many courts are going to listen to the drafter's claims of intent if another party to a contract of adhesion is adhering to the contract per the plain English meaning of the contract. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:21:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tim's Question: "Why do you have to clearly indicate which portions of the work are OGC if the whole work is considered to be OGC just by putting it with the license?" Because the work, as far as the license is concerned, and the work, as far as the consumer/reuser is concerned, might not be the same unit. Woodelf, I concur. A poem is a work. A picture can be a work. A short story can be a work. If I have a book that contains a short story, a poem, and a picture, I have a singe encompassing work, and three contained works. If I intend that the OGL apply only to the short story (by my election), and my OGC and PI declarations apply only to that short story, then it signals to users of the OGL that the "work covered by the license" is the short story, and not the poem or the picture or the encompassing volume. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:21:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I write an RPG. I use the WotC OGL, and declare "The entirety of the text of this work, save the index , table of contents, and credits, is Open Game Content." In your opinion, are you saying that my company trademark has just been declared OGC, because it wasn't declared PI? Or that it is automatically PI, because it wasn't declared OGC? I'm not sure where your trademarks are, and whether they are part of the text of the work. So I have no idea how to answer this. My opinion about this section of the license, as far as this thread is concerned, is limited to what is required of declarations for licensing compliance. At least in this thread I'm not willing to venture a strong opinion about what happens to your IP if you fail to exercise appropriate cautions over your declaration. I could speculate, but I don't think that's a useful contribution in the context of this particular thread which is already complicated enough. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:40:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And they've made it quite clear that they don't want to prohibit a magazine having some WotC OGL-using articles, and some "regular" articles. While they might like to enable that potential, the license does not permit it. Ryan Why not? I've recently posted Title 17's definition of collected works (like magazines) and it notes that while the collected works are works, they sub-works they contain are also works unto themselves. There is NOTHING in the license that says that you must apply the OGL to an entire collected work to cover a sub-work. It says only that it covers "a" (singular) "work". I respectfully disagree with your construction of the license on this subject. That said, I think the "in conjunction with" clause would apply to the rest of the magazine even if it wasn't per se a "covered work" as a whole.. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/5/2005 7:34:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But the license makes a lot more sense when you realize that non-game rule content doesn't have to be PI or OGC. Except that to come to that conclusion you have to utterly ignore the part of the license that says: "OGC means any work covered by the license excluding Product Identity" And I'm not willing to come to that conclusion simply so that I can say, "see there is a third type of content inside a covered work". I can instead read that part of the license as it seems to beg me to read it on my face and say instead: "In any collected work, you can apply the license to a sub-work without applying it to the whole collection, allowing a subwork to be OGC + PI and creating a space outside the covered work but inside the commercial unit which is not material directly covered by the OGL, but to which only the 'in conjunction with' prohibition probably directly applies" Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And I'm not willing to come to that conclusion simply so that I can say, see there is a third type of content inside a covered work. So, rather than take the interpretation that the industry has adopted, you prefer one that has almost exactly the same effect? Talk about arguing a moot point. Or is there some deep significance you prefer to attach to the distinction between text that is neither PI nor OGC inside an OGL-covered work and text is only in conjunction with the OGL-covered work. If there's something that you think you (and I) should be able to do, or that the other guy should be compelled to do, could you kindly spell it out for me? DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Doug Meerschaert wrote: woodelf wrote: Find me anything in the license itself that supports this [the third type of content]. Section #7. ... in a work containting Open Gaming Content... Section #8: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content. Now, there are certain things that have to be OGC, possibly including all game rules in your product. But the license makes a lot more sense when you realize that non-game rule content doesn't have to be PI or OGC. Neither of those clauses in any way necessitates, or even implies, non-OGC, non-PI content. Why refer to a work containing OGC? Because it also has PI, and both parts are covered by that clause. Likewise for the necessity to indicate OGC--just because, if a work only contains OGC and PI, it would be slightly redundant to identify both of those, doesn't mean that there is some 3rd bit. And, again, if the work that the license refers to is allowed to be a subset of the physical work, that, too, would explain the necessity of identifying both OGC and PI, without necessarily allowing the license to *cover* non-OGC non-PI content. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/5/2005 10:01:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, rather than take the interpretation that the industry has adopted, you prefer one that has almost exactly the same effect? I'm not certain I'd agree that almost complying with a license is the same as complying with a license. And, depending on how a judge rules, if he agrees that everything in a covered work is OGC except the parts that are PI, I'd hate to be the one who failed to declare some giant chunk of the covered work as either one and have him decide for me what it is. I'm not certain this would happen, as the judge could just as readily say read that the entire covered work must be OGC + PI and assume that my failure to designate the remaining portion might mean that I intended not to license it and he might then just treat it as a trivial violation of the license. Which a judge will decide? I'm not going to find out. So, I don't consider that the difference is trivial. I think when it comes to declarations, you need to darn well identify everything the license mandates that you declare and declare it as PI or OGC. Leave nothing undeclared or misdeclared that you have to clearly declare as an OGL requirement. Doing otherwise leaves you open to licensing violations or worse if your products ever get into a court. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:21:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I write an RPG. I use the WotC OGL, and declare The entirety of the text of this work, save the index , table of contents, and credits, is Open Game Content. In your opinion, are you saying that my company trademark has just been declared OGC, because it wasn't declared PI? Or that it is automatically PI, because it wasn't declared OGC? I'm not sure where your trademarks are, and whether they are part of the text of the work. So I have no idea how to answer this. My opinion about this section of the license, as far as this thread is concerned, is limited to what is required of declarations for licensing compliance. At least in this thread I'm not willing to venture a strong opinion about what happens to your IP if you fail to exercise appropriate cautions over your declaration. I could speculate, but I don't think that's a useful contribution in the context of this particular thread which is already complicated enough. Should've been clearer: any trademarks only appear in the credits of this hypothetical work. [I forget that some people trademark all sorts of stuff that i (1) would never dream of trademarking and (2) question the validity of trademarking. Some of it for good reason mind you--it's just not the way i want the world to work.] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/5/2005 10:53:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Furthermore, if there is no 3rd type of content within a covered work, then it becomes much trickier to sensibly chop a work up into lots of little pieces. Let's say you have a chapter of feats, and all the feat names are PI, and all the feat mechanics are OGC, and nothing has been said about the flavor text describing the feats. Is it sensible to refer to what is essentially every other paragraph of a chapter as "a work", in the vein of copyright definitions? If not, then maybe you really can't chop things up that way. What is an isn't a work is a matter of fact-based inquiry, so I might come up with a fact pattern where every other paragraph is a work. However, for every instance I come up with that, 99 others won't be situations where every other paragraph constitutes a work. That's why I tend to refer to examples of magazines and articles, where a magazine is a collected work (per Title 17) that contains other independently copyrightable sub works (per Title 17). There, it is clear to me, that you can apply the OGL to a work, and that an article is a work, and that there is no requirement in the OGL that the OGL must apply to a collected work just because a sub-work is covered. but i'm not yet convinced that, should it ever come down to a court to decide, that that third type is actually in the license. And when I read, "OGC means any work covered by the license excluding Product Identity", then it seems very much like it doesn't exist IN the covered work, even if it can exist in an encompassing work which is not a "covered work" in terms of the license. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
On 5 Sep 2005 at 21:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except that to come to that conclusion you have to utterly ignore the part of the license that says: OGC means any work covered by the license excluding Product Identity Sorry, but that is NOT what it says. There is a whole lot more to that definition that that one single phrase. You want to concentrate on that phrase, and only that phrase and ignore the rest of the definition. Is the entire definition poorly worded and unclear? Yes, it is. But after reading through the entire license it is apparent that you have to declare what is OGC, you have to declare what is PI. Since the OGC definition lists what must be OGC, and also states that you can claim additional OGC before it states the part that you keep quoting, it can quite easily be said that the part you keep quoting is in error due to poor wording. The rest of the license would appear to support this. You mentioned how courts tend to rule against the drafter in regards to contracts of adhesion, yet you are not realizing that your interpretation is acutally not of benefit to the draftee (and only potentially slightly more beneficial to the drafter). If anything, your interpretation is more restrictive to a person using the license. The way I see it, the interpretation that I have would be much more beneficial to the licensee, and would be the one that a court would rule for. 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] Any work covered by the license
woodelf wrote: Now, personally, i don't *like* the interpretation that there is no non-OGC non-PI content in a covered work--it wasn't until i had the third type of content explained to me that i was willing to even accept the license as viable--but i'm not yet convinced that, should it ever come down to a court to decide, that that third type is actually in the license. And later Tim Dugger wrote: You mentioned how courts tend to rule against the drafter in regards to contracts of adhesion, yet you are not realizing that your interpretation is acutally not of benefit to the draftee (and only potentially slightly more beneficial to the drafter). If anything, your interpretation is more restrictive to a person using the license. Woodelf, Tim said pretty much what I would say. The existince of a third type of content is an ambiguity in the license -- specifically, what is the status of part of a work that is neither identified as Open Gaming Content nor Product Idenity? But since it's in WotC's benefit for licensed work to have more OGC and not less whenever anyone but WotC uses it, a court should rule ambiguities in the favor of closing the content--that is, that where it isn't clear that work is OGC, it isn't. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/3/2005 11:08:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The second type would be content type #3 that I listed above. That would not be, definitionally, part of the "work covered by the license". By my reasoning, the license would not include the following clause if the whole work were considered OGL just by applying the license to the work. To put it another way, "Why do you have to clearly indicate which portions of the work are OGC if the whole work is considered to be OGC just by putting it with the license?" Because you have to define for the end user what the "work covered by the license" is. Consider that if you apply it to a magazine article you must make it clear that it is the article covered, not the magazine. You do that by signalling to the end user what the OGC and PI is, and that's the "work covered by the license". Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/3/2005 11:11:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does "work" and "covered work" = the entire product? Or does "work" simply mean "that text to which the OGL applies"? That's sort of tangential to the point of the thread, because I'm maintaining that no matter which of those it means, whatever is "the text to which the OGL applies" contains only OGC and PI. That's my primary contention. Now, since the License, in the OGC definition, invokes copyright law specifically, I think we have to reference "work" from Title 17 and associated case law, which means "that in which the copyright subsists". So, anything that Title 17 would recognize as a copyrightable "work" is what the License considers to be a work. I think that, in a magazine, for example, you can certainly apply the license to an article without applying it to the magazine. An article is a work. Perhaps discrete blocks of text (like chapters) might be works. I'm not convinced random smatterings of sentences here and there throughout a book would be considered by a court to be a "work". The point of this thread is, however, that no matter how you pick the covered work, once you say -- "this is the covered work" then the covered work contains OGC, PI, and NOTHING else, because "OGC means the work covered by the license excluding PI". So, I'm primarily debating what's in the covered work, and not what restrictions apply to a person on picking the covered work. I'll debate that, but I'd prefer that to be in a separate thread, Clark. For now, let's assume that we have one work, a book. Let's assume that it is wholly non-derivative. Let's assume that the person who wrote the book applies the OGL to it, and says, "This book, in its entirety, is a single work covered by the Open Gaming License". Let's assume that the guy has no Product Identity. How much of the book must be OGC? In my opinion, 100%. As soon as you pick a "work covered by the license", that "work covers by the license contains only OGC and PI, or, if there's no PI, then it contains only OGC". Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/4/2005 12:20:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just be careful here: When Lee talks about "a work," he probably means that as something distinct from "a book." That is, he's of the school that says "the covered work" isn't the equivalent of "the product," because "the work" can mean an individual OGL-bound article within a larger magazine that isn't bound by the strictures of the OGL. That is correct. Good eye. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Tim has focused on this part of the OGC definition: "'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" OK, what this is saying is that if it isn't an enhancement over the prior art, then it's prior art. And if it is prior art and if it ain't patented (patented materials might be PI), then it's probably Public Domain. If it's public domain, it isn't OGC. I read that consistent with the whole work covered by the license being OGC minus the parts that are PI. How can you say in a work with no PI that the "work" is 100% OGC, but that this definition does not reach public domain materials? A work is "that in which the copyright subsists". The copyright does not extend to the parts of the work that are in the public domain, except in their selection and presentation. You copyright your whole book in practice, but really the Title 17 scope of the copyright does not cover the public domain materials in isolation, only in the way that they are selected and presented. If your covered work is a whole book and if there's no PI, you OGC the whole book, but the OGC only reaches public domain materials in context and in their form of presentation, but does not provide any special status to them out of context (where they'd just be plain old public domain materials). Outside the OGL I might say, "you can copyright any original work of your own, and while the work will then be copyrighted, the copyright's rights and protections does not extend to any public domain materials except in their order, their selection, and their mode of presentation." I think that's very consistent with and similar to the sentence from the OGL above. You can declare a whole work as OGC, but that declaration doesn't "reach" some stuff in the public domain. You can copyright an entire work, but that copyright doesn't "reach" some of the stuff in the public domain. I also think, and I have held this view for a long time, that the OGL works in practice, but at law, the OGL has some parts (including the OGC definition) that are a giant clusterf**k, and it should be redrafted. If industry professionals who are intelligent and trying to engage in reasonable debate can't almost automatically reach a common reading of the license, I think that's a de jure problem even if it isn't a de facto problem. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/4/2005 12:20:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This means a book could contain four types of text: 1) Open Content 2) Product Identity 3) Text that is within the covers of the book but is not within the declared bounds of the covered work (also commonly referred to as the "third type of content") 4) Text that is mistakenly declared to be OGC or PI, but which actually isn't covered by the strictures of the OGL I agree with this. The OGC + PI = covered work. There can be, in some volumes, a subwork that is covered by the OGL (like an article in a magazine), while the rest of the volume (e.g., the rest of the magazine) is not a work covered by the OGL and is the mysterious "third type of content". That is not a third type of content in the "work covered by the license", but instead is in a commercial unit where not all of that commercial unit is covered directly by the license. There, of course, will be areas declared as OGC or PI that are not reached by the license. See my recent post on the reach of the OGL with regards to public domain materials. All OGC, when it is atomized, will contain certain public domain materials (individual words, individual phrases, unpatented processes and concepts, etc.). So the fact that any public domain materials are subsumed by an OGC declaration is, in my mind, to be anticipated and should be wholly non-controversial. This is similar to the fact that in any copyrighted work, the work is copyrighted, but when that work is atomized, it is always made up of individual uncopyrightable elements (words, uncopyrightable concepts, etc.). When somebody PI's a public domain word, phrase, or process (i.e., a word, phrase, or process that is not trademarked and is not patented) then they've effectively ignored the ownership prerequistes for PI declaration. The license mentions the "owner" of PI many times including one sentence where, although it is poorly punctuated, it looks very much like all PI that is declared must be owned. As such, when people declare things that they don't own as PI then they are: a) breaching the license b) causing chaos downstream and creating the false assumption that people cannot use certain terms which, in fact, are in the public domain and aren't "owned" by the PI declarer. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
From: Clark Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can I say the work is just chapters 2 and 4? Or, in your view, does the work mean the whole book? The intent of the license is that it apply to all chapters. This is a required interpretation. Otherwise, it would be possible to put the things that we didn't want you to be able say like This product is compatible with Dungeons Dragons(R) on the cover and claim that it was not a part of the work covered by the OGL. My reading of copyright caselaw indicated that the courts view any commercial unit sold as a whole as a work for the purposes of copyright licenses. 3 booklets sold in a box is a work. A magazine featuring many articles is a work. The caselaw regarding anthologies and collections is also pretty clear: The work is the body as a whole, but that body may comprise many individual components with different copyrights. However, the collection gains copyright protection as well (you can't make a CD of Beatles tunes that features the same songs in the same order as 1, even if you had the individual right to republish the songs themselves, or even to publish a collection of #1 hits.) This is the same interpretation I believe should and would be applied to the trademark license. Otherwise, you could put all the verboten stuff in a booklet shipped inside the cover of a hardback game and make a complete RPG, etc. From my reading, I believe that work is almost always used in the most expansive way possible. For example, in Anderson v. Stallone, the court held that the entire script written by Anderson was an unauthorized derivative work of Stallone's original Rocky script, despite the fact that the only thing the two works shared in common were the names of the characters and their general descriptions. Ryan ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Ryan S. Dancey wrote: Can I say the work is just chapters 2 and 4? Or, in your view, does the work mean the whole book? The intent of the license is that it apply to all chapters. This is a required interpretation. Otherwise, it would be possible to put the things that we didn't want you to be able say like This product is compatible with Dungeons Dragons(R) on the cover and claim that it was not a part of the work covered by the OGL. If this is the case, then there's no such thing as the third type of content and a whole bunch of stuff has been published under the OGL using an incorrect interpretation of the license. I wonder if the fact that WotC hasn't taken any steps in the past five years to correct this misinterpretation would work against the company if it tried to start enforcing this interpretation now. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If this is the case, then there's no such thing as the third type of content and a whole bunch of stuff has been published under the OGL using an incorrect interpretation of the license. Nope. Anything not identified as required in Section #8 and also not noted as Product Identity is third type of content. This whole recent fury of list posting can be traced back to a misunderstanding, that if you somehow don't mark content as required in Section 8 then you've opened up the entire work, sans the Product Identity. Which simply isn't true. DM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/88 - Release Date: 9/1/2005 ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
On 4 Sep 2005 at 16:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If this is the case, then there's no such thing as the third type of content and a whole bunch of stuff has been published under the OGL using an incorrect interpretation of the license. I wonder if the fact that WotC hasn't taken any steps in the past five years to correct this misinterpretation would work against the company if it tried to start enforcing this interpretation now. I view it as squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are square. You have a work, as defined by Ryan to be an entire product from cover to cover. In this work you are required to declare what is OGC, and to declare what is PI. However, there is nothing in the license that says the entire work IS OGC unless it is declared PI. My interpretation is that the work contains OGC, PI, and anything else not declared by the first two. That anything else is still bound by the OGL, especially where the OGL superceeds copyright law. That anything else can include such things as public domain material (such as the names of the Norse Gods). If the entire work were considered to be OGC, except for what was declared PI, then there would be absolutely no reason to declare what is OGC, as it would be implicit that if it is not declared as PI it would be OGC. However, this interpretation fails because it is possible to incude public domain material (such as the names of Norse gods) in a work. Since the names are public domain, they cannot be declared OGC nor PI because the contributor does not own the rights to declare it as one or the other, and if a work contains only 2 types of content (OGC PI), then it would be impossible to use any public domain material within a covered work. Thus, any work which included such would be in violation of the OGL Note: Yes, I know that the specific implementation/description/representation of a Norse god would belong to the person who wrote/published it, but the name itself could not be OGC nor PI as it rests in the public domain. 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] Any work covered by the license
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Doug Meerschaert wrote: If this is the case, then there's no such thing as the third type of content and a whole bunch of stuff has been published under the OGL using an incorrect interpretation of the license. Nope. Anything not identified as required in Section #8 and also not noted as Product Identity is third type of content. This whole recent fury of list posting can be traced back to a misunderstanding, that if you somehow don't mark content as required in Section 8 then you've opened up the entire work, sans the Product Identity. Which simply isn't true. But Ryan just said that the intent of the OGL is that everything from cover to cover (including the covers) is the covered work, and we know from Lee that the covered work consists of only PI and OGC, with third type of content being material that's outside of the covered work. If Ryan's right and there's no material in an OGL-using product that is outside of the covered work, then there's no such thing as the third type of content; either Ryan's wrong or everyone who believes in the third type of content (including a number of publishers) is wrong. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Tim Dugger wrote: If this is the case, then there's no such thing as the third type of content and a whole bunch of stuff has been published under the OGL using an incorrect interpretation of the license. You have a work, as defined by Ryan to be an entire product from cover to cover. In this work you are required to declare what is OGC, and to declare what is PI. However, there is nothing in the license that says the entire work IS OGC unless it is declared PI. So you're saying that Ryan's interpretation is correct and that Lee's interpretation is wrong. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
From: Tim Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] You have a work, as defined by Ryan to be an entire product from cover to cover. In this work you are required to declare what is OGC, and to declare what is PI. However, there is nothing in the license that says the entire work IS OGC unless it is declared PI. That is the correct interpretation, as far as I am concerned. Ryan ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
On 4 Sep 2005 at 17:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you're saying that Ryan's interpretation is correct and that Lee's interpretation is wrong. hehe... You know, I am not sure anymore Seriously, I do think that the entire product is a covered work, so I guess that yes, I am agreeing with Ryan in this instance (will wonders never cease...). However, I don't seem to recall Ryan stating whether there are only 2 types of content in a covered work or three (maybe I missed that part). I think that there are three possible types of content. OGC, PI, and anything not declared. I also think that anything not declared would fall under normal copyright law, except where superceeded by the OGL. Other than that one single phrase within the definition of Open Game Content (the one Lee uses to say that an entire covered work must be either OGC or PI), the language of the license seems to make it very clear that 1) You must declare OGC and PI, and 2) that since you must declare what portions are OGC, that infers that the whole work is not OGC. If it were, then you would not need to declare it. In hindsight, I am thinking that perhaps the license is missing a definition for something that should perhaps be called Proprietory Content (PC) that cannot be used by others and falls under normal copyright except as prohibited by other portions of the license (such as declaring compatibility), and define it as all content not declared as OGC or PI. If it had such a definition, then this discussion would not be taking place. 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] Any work covered by the license
I agree that is probably going to be the interpretation. Sort of ironic, of course, that you have to go to standard copyright law to get that definition. Maybe I'm the only one who finds that funny :) My question was more to find out what the prior poster's view of work was that was underpinning his argument and discussion. Clark From: Clark Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can I say the work is just chapters 2 and 4? Or, in your view, does the work mean the whole book? The intent of the license is that it apply to all chapters. This is a required interpretation. Otherwise, it would be possible to put the things that we didn't want you to be able say like This product is compatible with Dungeons Dragons(R) on the cover and claim that it was not a part of the work covered by the OGL. My reading of copyright caselaw indicated that the courts view any commercial unit sold as a whole as a work for the purposes of copyright licenses. 3 booklets sold in a box is a work. A magazine featuring many articles is a work. The caselaw regarding anthologies and collections is also pretty clear: The work is the body as a whole, but that body may comprise many individual components with different copyrights. However, the collection gains copyright protection as well (you can't make a CD of Beatles tunes that features the same songs in the same order as 1, even if you had the individual right to republish the songs themselves, or even to publish a collection of #1 hits.) This is the same interpretation I believe should and would be applied to the trademark license. Otherwise, you could put all the verboten stuff in a booklet shipped inside the cover of a hardback game and make a complete RPG, etc. From my reading, I believe that work is almost always used in the most expansive way possible. For example, in Anderson v. Stallone, the court held that the entire script written by Anderson was an unauthorized derivative work of Stallone's original Rocky script, despite the fact that the only thing the two works shared in common were the names of the characters and their general descriptions. Ryan ___ 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] Any work covered by the license
My position is that you cant default stuff to OGC unless, perhaps, you can clearly show that it is or is derived from OGC. I dont buy the OGC by default argument. In my view, nearly any ogc by default situation, what you really have is a failure to use the license properly. A license violation does not create default OGC. It creates stuff that should have been designated as OGC and wasnt, but that isnt the same as making it OGC by default. Clark --- Thomas Kyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Does this mean that, in a work that had 10 chapters, where thefollowing definitions were in place: (abbreviated, obviously) OGC: Chap 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 PI: Chap 1, 4, 9 Would the other chapters [ 5, 8 ] default to OGC (So all _but_ 1, 4, 9were open, even though they weren't declared that way?) I've seenseveral well-known authors\publishers declare both, with some parts asneither Ryan S. Dancey wrote:From: Clark Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can I say the work is just chapters 2 and4? Or, in your view, does the work mean the whole book? The intent of the license is that it apply to all chapters. This is a required interpretation. Otherwise, it would be possible toput the things that we didn't want you to be able say like Thisproduct is compatible with Dungeons Dragons(R) on the cover andclaim that it was not a part of the work covered by the OGL. My reading of copyright caselaw indicated that the courts view anycommercial unit sold as a whole as a work for the purposes ofcopyright licenses. 3 booklets sold in a box is a work. A magazinefeaturing many articles is a work. The caselaw regarding anthologies and collections is also prettyclear: The work is the body as a whole, but that body may comprisemany individual components with different copyrights. However, thecollection gains copyright protection as well (you can't make a CD ofBeatles tunes that features the same songs in the same order as 1,even if you had the individual right to republish the songs themselves,or even to publish a collection of #1 hits.) This is the same interpretation I believe should and would be appliedto the trademark license. Otherwise, you could put all the verbotenstuff in a booklet shipped inside the cover of a hardback game and makea complete RPG, etc. From my reading, I believe that work isalmost always used in the most expansive way possible. For example, in Anderson v. Stallone, thecourt held that the entire script written by Anderson was anunauthorized derivative work of Stallone's original Rocky script,despite the fact that the only thing the two works shared in commonwere the names of the characters and their general descriptions. Ryan ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l -- Thomas E. A. Kyle ( Kirin'Tor ) eTools - ContentManager d20 Multiverse - Webmaster Designer No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/2005 ___ 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] Any work covered by the license
If this is the case, then there's no such thing as the third type of content I'm a little slow, :) but I'm not sure that this is necessarily true. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
From: Tim Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] You have a work, as defined by Ryan to be an entire product from cover to cover. In this work you are required to declare what is OGC, and to declare what is PI. However, there is nothing in the license that says the entire work IS OGC unless it is declared PI. That is the correct interpretation, as far as I am concerned. Ryan I am so glad you agree with that :) I didnt want to be on my own on this one. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
On 9/3/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Contractual construction requires that you give effect to this if possible, even if it renders something else redundant. A poor attempt at contractual construction is one where you have to delete a portion of the contract for it to make sense when you read it. Here's the thing -- and this is important, so feel free to repeat it ad-nauseum once you get it right. *Despite* what the industry thinks, if you don't properly follow the OGL you don't gain its protections. If you fail to follow clause #8, you've broken the license. Just as if you used someone else's trademark, used non-OGC, or failed to update your Section 15. Now, it's very likely that no one is going to come after your website that improperly uses someone else's OGC -- even if you're doing it wrong, the worst they can do is make you fix it. But for the second-generation, if you don't trust your upstream authors, don't use them. Because if THEY get called to task and decide it's easier to just not fix it, then YOU lose the part of their work that used THEIR work. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
In a message dated 9/3/2005 6:23:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you fail to follow clause #8, you've broken the license. Of course this is true. Nobody is debating this. You have to do it. Nobody said it wasn't legally required of you to do it. You've missed the point of the post which is arguing that the phrase "OGC means any work covered by the license, excluding Product Identity" effectively says: OGC = COVERED WORK - PI OR COVERED WORK = OGC + PI This says nothing about compliance with the requirement that you must declare your OGC. It's analyzing the definition of OGC. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
On 3 Sep 2005 at 18:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OGC = COVERED WORK - PI OR COVERED WORK = OGC + PI Where I was saying Covered Work = OGC + PI + whatever is left over and not covered by the previous two terms (this would be covered by standard copyright law). As Darklord pointed out elsewhere, you cannot PI, nor OGC things that you do not own. Thus if a person used material from the public domain, you could not, according to the OGL declare that public domain material as OGC, nor as PI. To me, this says that his interpretation that everything (except what is declared PI) is OGC is incorrect. 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] Any work covered by the license
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Tim Dugger wrote: OGC = COVERED WORK - PI OR COVERED WORK = OGC + PI Where I was saying Covered Work = OGC + PI + whatever is left over and not covered by the previous two terms (this would be covered by standard copyright law). Thus if a person used material from the public domain, you could not, according to the OGL declare that public domain material as OGC, nor as PI. To me, this says that his interpretation that everything (except what is declared PI) is OGC is incorrect. The problem with adding the plus leftover standard copyright law stuff as part of the covered work, is that those things that are part of the covered work are not covered under standard copyright law. For instance, you are allowed to get away with some things in copyright law (mentioning other people's trademarks, or quoting short passages under fair use rules) that you aren't allowed to do within a covered work under the OGL. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
On 3 Sep 2005 at 20:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem with adding the plus leftover standard copyright law stuff as part of the covered work, is that those things that are part of the covered work are not covered under standard copyright law. For instance, you are allowed to get away with some things in copyright law (mentioning other people's trademarks, or quoting short passages under fair use rules) that you aren't allowed to do within a covered work under the OGL. So we would have the following: 1) OGC 2) PI 3) Non-OGC, Non-PI Material For #3, it is neither OGC nor PI, and is covered by normal copyright law, except where it is superceded by the limitations from the OGL. Would that be a better way of phrasing it? Okay, now back to the core question. The issue being discussed is as follows: Lee has stated (and he can correct me if I get this incorrect) that in his opinion, if you apply the OGL to a work (any work), that it is automatically 100% OGC. You then need to declare what portions are PI, and declare what portions are OGC, and that the work is made up of only those two types of content. However, the way that I view it (i.e. my opinion) is that when you take a work (any work) and apply the OGL to it, that you automatically end up with two types of content. The first being that which must be declared OGC (i.e. any mechanics or other material derived from the SRD or other OGL sources (presuming that those other sources made their declarations correctly and you are using those sources properly). The second type would be content type #3 that I listed above. At this point, you would then expand the OGC declaration to include anything else you want to be OGC. You would also make your PI declaration for anything you want to mark as Product Identity. By my reasoning, the license would not include the following clause -- 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. -- if the whole work were considered OGL just by applying the license to the work. To put it another way, Why do you have to clearly indicate which portions of the work are OGC if the whole work is considered to be OGC just by putting it with the license? This topic was a sidebar that came out of the thread, on rpg.net, about the OGC wiki that Mike Mearls proposed, and that others have since began working on. 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] Any work covered by the license
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Tim Dugger wrote: So we would have the following: 1) OGC 2) PI 3) Non-OGC, Non-PI Material For #3, it is neither OGC nor PI, and is covered by normal copyright law, except where it is superceded by the limitations from the OGL. Would that be a better way of phrasing it? I think a better way of phrasing your concern about public domain text and other things that may creep in is: The covered work consists of the Open Gaming Content plus the Product Identity minus any text that the publisher doesn't have the authority (i.e., ownership rights) to contribute. This means a book could contain four types of text: 1) Open Content 2) Product Identity 3) Text that is within the covers of the book but is not within the declared bounds of the covered work (also commonly referred to as the third type of content) 4) Text that is mistakenly declared to be OGC or PI, but which actually isn't covered by the strictures of the OGL Okay, now back to the core question. The issue being discussed is as follows: Lee has stated (and he can correct me if I get this incorrect) that in his opinion, if you apply the OGL to a work (any work), that it is automatically 100% OGC. You then need to declare what portions are PI, and declare what portions are OGC, and that the work is made up of only those two types of content. Just be careful here: When Lee talks about a work, he probably means that as something distinct from a book. That is, he's of the school that says the covered work isn't the equivalent of the product, because the work can mean an individual OGL-bound article within a larger magazine that isn't bound by the strictures of the OGL. However, the way that I view it (i.e. my opinion) is that when you take a work (any work) and apply the OGL to it, that you automatically end up with two types of content. The first being that which must be declared OGC (i.e. any mechanics or other material derived from the SRD or other OGL sources (presuming that those other sources made their declarations correctly and you are using those sources properly). The second type would be content type #3 that I listed above. At this point, you would then expand the OGC declaration to include anything else you want to be OGC. You would also make your PI declaration for anything you want to mark as Product Identity. By my reasoning, the license would not include the following clause -- 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. -- if the whole work were considered OGL just by applying the license to the work. To put it another way, Why do you have to clearly indicate which portions of the work are OGC if the whole work is considered to be OGC just by putting it with the license? You can also read Section 8 the other way around: If you distribute Open Game Content, you must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing *aren't* Open Game Content. Read this way, what it refers to is the fact that you have to clearly denote any PI that falls within the declared OGC, lest it be considered Open. Since the work consists of OGC and PI, if you accurately declare one (e.g., The OGC is all of the following ... with the exception of these specific words...) you've effectively identified the other. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
