RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
-Original Message- From: avatar of Darkness Not saying which interpretation of that line is right or wrong, but it would seem to me that if Chris' interpretation is correct you wouldn't have to mark it as PI.. its simple ommision from the Open Content of the product would seem to be enough. Prevailing wisdom is that there are three types of content in a work covered by the OGL. Material must be identified as OGC to be open (section 8) so there exists the possibility that there is content that is not identified as OGC. This second type is just normal copyrighted material that is not licensed. The third type is Product Identity which specifically means material that is included in OGC but is meant to be explicitly excluded from the terms of the license for open material. If material is ommitted from OGC (meaning it doesn't appear in a section of OGC material), it can't be PI. That material would be the second type of normal, non-open content. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
The problem with Democracy is that 'prevailing wisdom' is often wrong. I'm not saying that there is a 'correct' interpretation, just that until such time as a case actually goes to court there is no 'correct' interpretation. Because of that, there is pleanty of legal ground to argue that the OGL covers an entire work and that material within that work is either OGC or PI. If you check the license there is no description of what Other stuff not covered by the license would look like or how to handle it. Weldon Dodd wrote: -Original Message- From: avatar of Darkness Not saying which interpretation of that line is right or wrong, but it would seem to me that if Chris' interpretation is correct you wouldn't have to mark it as PI.. its simple ommision from the Open Content of the product would seem to be enough. Prevailing wisdom is that there are three types of content in a work covered by the OGL. Material must be identified as OGC to be open (section 8) so there exists the possibility that there is content that is not identified as OGC. This second type is just normal copyrighted material that is not licensed. The third type is Product Identity which specifically means material that is included in OGC but is meant to be explicitly excluded from the terms of the license for open material. If material is ommitted from OGC (meaning it doesn't appear in a section of OGC material), it can't be PI. That material would be the second type of normal, non-open content. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
-Original Message- From: avatar of Darkness Because of that, there is pleanty of legal ground to argue that the OGL covers an entire work and that material within that work is either OGC or PI. If you check the license there is no description of what Other stuff not covered by the license would look like or how to handle it. The argument isn't that the material is not covered by the license. The argument is that the terms of the license to reuse open content only applies to content that is clearly identified as open (which is what the license says). PI is content that is explicitly excluded from OGC because otherwise the OGC designation would include it. There is an implication of a third type of content that is not designated as OGC or PI and is therefore non-open. The license does not require you to cleary identify non-open material. It only requires that you identify OGC or PI. The ommission is purposeful and allows for this third type of content. Basically the license says, any content not clearly identified as being licensed is not licensed. It thus protects the author from unwittingly releasing material as open that is not clearly identified as open. The clearly identified requirement is very clear and must be explicitly made for both OGC and PI. Anything that is not clearly identified or designated as OGC or PI is non-open. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
On 1 Mar 2005 Weldon scribbled a note about RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (Thir: The argument isn't that the material is not covered by the license. The argument is that the terms of the license to reuse open content only applies to content that is clearly identified as open (which is what the license says). PI is content that is explicitly excluded from OGC because otherwise the OGC designation would include it. There is an implication of a third type of content that is not designated as OGC or PI and is therefore non-open. Aha... Here is possibly a good way to look at it... begin product unlabled content / begin Open Content PI material (within the open content /close open content unlabled content / /end product The whole purpose behind PI is to be able to exclude material from sections marked as Open Content, plain and simple. Anything not marked as Open Content or as PI, falls back to be covered by standard copyright and trademark laws. 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] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
In a message dated 3/1/2005 1:46:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The problem with Democracy is that 'prevailing wisdom' is often wrong. Except in this case, the prevailing wisdom is largely on target. The license says explicitly the entirety of the covered work is OGC except that which is PI. In a multi-part complex work (which contains other works), including some books, and most magazines, the enclosing work may not be covered, which one enclosed work might be. The enclosed work that is covered will be 100% covered and the sum of its OGC and PI parts will equal 100% of that covered work, while the magazine (which is not covered) will have one article with PI and OGC the rest with normal copyrighted contents. I'm not saying that there is a 'correct' interpretation, just that until such time as a case actually goes to court there is no 'correct' interpretation. The license is explicit that for a covered work it's all 100% OGC except the parts that are PI. Because of that, there is pleanty of legal ground to argue that the OGL covers an entire work and that material within that work is either OGC or PI. If you check the license there is no description of what "Other stuff not covered by the license" would look like or how to handle it. No, and the multi-part work or compilation where a work contains other works is the most common way that it can occur. The license doesn't need to cover that possibility for it to be a legally possible application of its use. Note that I have contended for a long time that the license explicitly covers a whole WORK (it says so). And it doesn't provide that only part of the work can be covered. But in a compilation or multi-part work, you can have a chapter or an article which could be published separately as a work and that work can be covered separately from the surrounding volume, just each article in a gaming magazine may be separately covered by a separate Section 15. This not uncommonly occurs in Dragon Magazine (particularly for Green Ronin) when they publish some of their ads or an excerpt of their latest book. Dragon is not an OGL covered publication but some parts of it, constituting works in and of themselves, are covered works. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
While your use of tagging is pretty spiffy, it isn't that useful as it could support both sides of the discussion. Is it: begin product PI material (outside open content / begin Open Content PI material (within the open content /close open content PI Matierial (outside open content / /end product OR begin product Standard copyright content / begin Open Content PI material (within the open content /close open content Standard copyright content / /end product Up until your last sentence I thought you were going with version 1, but the last sentence leads me to belive you meant version 2. Tim Dugger wrote: On 1 Mar 2005 Weldon scribbled a note about RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (Thir: The argument isn't that the material is not covered by the license. The argument is that the terms of the license to reuse open content only applies to content that is clearly identified as open (which is what the license says). PI is content that is explicitly excluded from OGC because otherwise the OGC designation would include it. There is an implication of a third type of content that is not designated as OGC or PI and is therefore non-open. Aha... Here is possibly a good way to look at it... begin product unlabled content / begin Open Content PI material (within the open content /close open content unlabled content / /end product The whole purpose behind PI is to be able to exclude material from sections marked as Open Content, plain and simple. Anything not marked as Open Content or as PI, falls back to be covered by standard copyright and trademark laws. 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 ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
In a message dated 3/1/2005 2:20:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And where does it say that the covered work is 100% OGC, except for the parts that are PI? In the definition you quoted (from me) it says THE WORK that's covered is OGC except the parts that are PI. Work is a legal term of art, varying from industry to industry, but will generally mean a complete artistic product or sales unit. An article, a book, a poem are a work. A sentence or paragraph usually, but not always, are deemed to be NOT a work. There is some flexibility as to the definition of the work, but once you say: This is the work covered by the product and define what is covered, of the stuff that's covered, it's 100% OGC except for the parts that are PI via 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] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
Except what you are saying disagrees with prevailing wisdom. 'Prevaliing Wisdom' says that out of 100% of a work, X% = OGC, Y% = PI, and Z% = Standard Copyright law stuff where X + Y + Z = 100%. I think you switched positions somewhere along the way. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/1/2005 1:46:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The problem with Democracy is that 'prevailing wisdom' is often wrong. Except in this case, the prevailing wisdom is largely on target. The license says explicitly the entirety of the covered work is OGC except that which is PI. In a multi-part complex work (which contains other works), including some books, and most magazines, the enclosing work may not be covered, which one enclosed work might be. The enclosed work that is covered will be 100% covered and the sum of its OGC and PI parts will equal 100% of that covered work, while the magazine (which is not covered) will have one article with PI and OGC the rest with normal copyrighted contents. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
In a message dated 3/1/2005 3:06:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think you switched positions somewhere along the way. BTW -- I sometimes do switch sides on issues when I play devil's advocate. Read the archives and you'll see me do that. In general, though, I make it pretty obvious when I'm trying to play on both sides of the fence to evoke commentary for either or both sides and promote intellectual debate on a subject. Today is not one of those days. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
See, but the discussion at that point was: Prevailing Wisdom: X% = OGC Y% = PI Z% = Copyrighted Matierial X + Y + Z = 100% VS Other Method: X% = OGC Y% = PI X + Y = 100% So when Wheldon Dodd said: "Prevailing wisdom is that there are three types of content in a work covered by the OGL." And I said: "The problem with Democracy is that 'prevailing wisdom' is often wrong." And then you said: "Except in this case, the prevailing wisdom is largely on target." What you meant was that the Prevailing Wisdom was approximately right, but you really prefered the other method? Are you sure you're not just arguing to argue? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/1/2005 3:06:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Except what you are saying disagrees with prevailing wisdom. 'Prevaliing Wisdom' says that out of 100% of a work, X% = OGC, Y% = PI, and Z% = Standard Copyright law stuff where X + Y + Z = 100%. I think you switched positions somewhere along the way. I was implying that prevailing wisdom is approximately right, but that Z typically should appear only in multi-part works and compilations since people typically choose to apply the OGL to an entire book (with the exception of a handful of people who apply it to a single article, ad, or appendix). If you read the archives from about 6 months+ back you'll see I've stuck to this position ever since I did a close reading of the definition of OGC. 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] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
On 1 Mar 2005 avatar scribbled a note about Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (Thir: What I don't see is the difference between Closed because its PI and Closed because it falls under Copyright Law. Closed is closed, you can't use it. Beyond that, because your 16 page PDF is a single 'work', the OGL covers that entire work weather you want it to or not. On the other hand, if it was a webpage, that single page is a document in and of itself and could be considered a 'work' within the whole of the webpage. In which case I can see only that single page being covered by the OGL while the rest of the website falls under normal copyright law. PI is closed content WITHIN something marked as Open Game Content. Other content outside of that OGC declaration is not covered by the license, and there for normally closed as per copyright and trademark lasws. No, the OGL does not cover my 16 page pdf whether I want it to or not. It only covers what material that I declare as open content, and the material declared as PI (that is within the open content) and nothing more. 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] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
In a message dated 3/1/2005 3:48:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Point blank, are you a publisher? Yes or No. I've put out a couple of small things with the OGL. And I've done some work on two other publisher's projects. I do public policy work and litigative consulting (I act as a consultant to lawyers as a case strategist, as an assitant to expert witnesses, and once as an expert myself for an administrative hearing). I specialize in civil rights policy, but I have a strong interest in gaming industry law. But I've been long involved in the industry as an amateur (doing playtesting, etc.) Right now I and 3 business partners are about to setup our LLC. Our company's financial resources are aimed at putting out a Collectible Card game, and since that may cost $40,000 just to start I haven't targeted much time to bringing out anything new under the OGL to market. I have about 100 pages of materials, but it is not edited and won't be until our CCG comes out. You can make your faux intellectual debates if you want but that isn't the nature of the debate on this list. Actually, again, I said I wasn't playing devil's advocate right now. In fact, if anything, I came here and started this bloody thread to see if I could have my opinions changed about the credibility of your point. I was looking for enlightened discussion, to see if there was anything credible about your position. I came here with an open mind, but Weldon brought up some points and I found something in case law that made up my mind. You came here looking for a fight. I didn't even know you were a list member. I'm expressing my opinions. And since I have used and ill continue to use the OGL for publications, either amateur or professional, that makes me have an interest in the license. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
Yep. That's my cue to get out of the pool. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/1/2005 3:44:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And then you said: Except in this case, the prevailing wisdom is largely on target. What you meant was that the Prevailing Wisdom was approximately right, Which is what largely on target means, at least to me. Largely on target is not the same as precisely on target. It's off a little in my opinion. There are 3 types of content in lots of works containing OGC, but frequently the parts that aren't OGC or PI aren't covered at all by the OGL except tangentially (in the no compatibility declarations clause). Are you sure you're not just arguing to argue? Dude. If you back and check the archives, you'll see that I've had the same position on this for a LONG time, and it hasn't wavered much. The distinction is largely academic. The only time it matters is in a question of whether someone has standing (under the OGL, not traditional IP law) to bring a suit regarding something in a work that that's listed as neither OGC nor PI. The other thing is, my interpretation opens up the people who slap the OGL on a whole book, list that book's copyright in Section 15, etc. to a potentially nasty surprise in court. A court if, it agrees with me that covered works are 100% OGC+PI would then be left to its own devices to determine whether undeclared areas of a work are OGC or PI. This latter area is not likely to come up at law, so it's largely moot. It is, at best, for most purposes, a technically nuanced distinction that COULD matter a lot, but in practice probably won't. 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] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
Huh.. you're right. For some reason I think I got my definition on 'work' mixed up with that from the Dominion Rules License. Thanks for pointing that out. Tim Dugger wrote: On 1 Mar 2005 avatar scribbled a note about Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (Thir: What I don't see is the difference between Closed because its PI and Closed because it falls under Copyright Law. Closed is closed, you can't use it. Beyond that, because your 16 page PDF is a single 'work', the OGL covers that entire work weather you want it to or not. On the other hand, if it was a webpage, that single page is a document in and of itself and could be considered a 'work' within the whole of the webpage. In which case I can see only that single page being covered by the OGL while the rest of the website falls under normal copyright law. PI is closed content WITHIN something marked as Open Game Content. Other content outside of that OGC declaration is not covered by the license, and there for normally closed as per copyright and trademark lasws. No, the OGL does not cover my 16 page pdf whether I want it to or not. It only covers what material that I declare as open content, and the material declared as PI (that is within the open content) and nothing more. 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 ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
In a message dated 3/1/2005 4:10:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ask in hypotheticals and there's sure to be someone out there who wants to get in a debate. I prefer hypotheticals, because people tend to give less situational answers. They tend to think about a variety of related scenarios and give more thoughtful responses. I don't always care that a specific answer ends up right, or even that I start out with the right answer, so much as I care about studying what people have to offer and teasing out what I feel is the truth out of the collective opinions presented. If it's the one I originally started with, so be it. I've learned a lot even today. I wish the environment had been a little friendlier, but things happen. So, I'll keep asking hypotheticals. I maintain an OGL FAQ for the benefit of neophyte publishers (particularly any new FUDGE publishers) and I like asking tough questions to make sure I have the best grasp I can have on the license. My FAQ is one of the most extensive around and includes a lot of subject matter areas that some of the others don't touch upon. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
--- avatar of Darkness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm afraid that for the hard questions you're not going to find much more than intellectual debate as none of this has ever gone to court to have any real legal precedent. Ironically, I haven't been speaking in hypotheticals. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
Tim, I think the definition of work is slightly broader than that since it includes the definitions at law of derivative works, etc. Also, you are dictating what is covered by your copyright definition inserted into Section 15. If your copyright definition includes a whole book, then you are applying the license to the book in my opinion. Your OGC'ing and PI'ing should be consistent with your copyright information in your section 15. If, for example, you OGC PI just your appendix, then you should not list your entire book in your section 15. You should make both pieces of information match up consistently. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
Must have missed it in the mess. So what's your product and what are you worried about? Chris Helton wrote: --- avatar of Darkness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm afraid that for the hard questions you're not going to find much more than intellectual debate as none of this has ever gone to court to have any real legal precedent. Ironically, I haven't been speaking in hypotheticals. ___ 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] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
--- avatar of Darkness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Must have missed it in the mess. So what's your product and what are you worried about? I'm not worried about anything. I posted to a thread on RPG.net where a person was asking about using the terms beholder and mind flayer and I said that they couldn't be used because they were the declared PI of WotC. It blew out of proportion there because of someone who doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on the OGL. The conversation then spread here when Darklord posted, and I followed up to his posting here. I've been a member of this list for about two years now. I have designed for d20, the Action! System, and I have developed my own second generation OGL system called Open Core. I am also working on a cross-publisher project with a small group of Fudge publishers. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
Oh that arguement. I've always gone on the assumption that for 'beholder' and 'mindflayer' to hold up as specific PI then it needs to obviously derivative. A monster called 'Beholder' that is a construct made of mirrors that traps people that behold it in those mirrors is fine as is the 'Mindflayer' psionic attack. On the other hand.. a floating eyeball with tentacles on its head called a beholder is derivative (But your honor, they are tentacles rather than eyestalks) By the same token, to use a prior example a Pern Dragon that bonds psychically with its rider and can teleport is more than likely derivative and may have Anne McCaffrey's lawyers knocking on your door. There would be a strong case that you are in breach of contract with the OGL as well. Chris Helton wrote: --- avatar of Darkness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Must have missed it in the mess. So what's your product and what are you worried about? I'm not worried about anything. I posted to a thread on RPG.net where a person was asking about using the terms beholder and mind flayer and I said that they couldn't be used because they were the declared PI of WotC. It blew out of proportion there because of someone who doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on the OGL. The conversation then spread here when Darklord posted, and I followed up to his posting here. I've been a member of this list for about two years now. I have designed for d20, the Action! System, and I have developed my own second generation OGL system called Open Core. I am also working on a cross-publisher project with a small group of Fudge publishers. ___ 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
