- Original Message -
From: "Damian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wednesday 18 February 2004 03:15 pm, Mark Clover wrote:
> > ...where that PI is valid, yes. The crux of my debate is in regard to the
> > nature of PI and its potential to be invalid on the basis of being
> > "Derivative Mater
- Original Message -
From: "Martin L. Shoemaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Perhaps a middle way: put "All spell names from Relics & Rituals are used by
> license." in YOUR copyright in your section 15. At that point, he has no
> choice AND no problem: he has to reproduce your section 15 verba
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The license makes derivative works, by default,
open content, excluding PI. However, if you have a large chunk of
someone else's OGC in your book then your whole book is a derivative work
under Title 17.You wouldn't be allowed to reproduce a huge chu
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Clover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I think perhaps you dont understand derivative use.
>
[snip]
>
> >From the OGL ' "Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including
> derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages),
> po
- Original Message -
From: "jdomsalla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >If putting a line that says "all spells from Relics and Rituals are used by
> license" is a hurdle to someone, I don't know how that person gets through
> the day.
>
> It's not necessarily the statement that's the hurtle, but
OK, you've actually got two different examples
going on. In the first case (if two OGC features are linked, in the source
material, by a common PI name, can you change that common PI name to a common
name of your choice) I'd say yes. Either reading of PI (whitewash vs...the
other way) allo
; then you'd be able to call your spells "Hand of Doom" and "Horrid
> > > Vomit".
> > >
> > > There is a parallel here to the fact that there are spells in the
> > > Player's Handbook called "Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion" a
pells in the
> > Player's Handbook called "Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion" and
> > "Bigby's Interposing Hand," and there are spells in the SRD called
> > "Magnificent Mansion" and "Interposing Hand", and the former are
Alright different example:
In the book, Mutants and Masterminds there are 3
types of points that have been designated as PI.
Hero Points
Villian Points
Power Points
For each of the above types of points there is one
section that defines how you calculate how many of these the character get
Even then, it isn't very exact.
Imagine that in the SRD in addition to those spells, Mordenkainen and Bigby
are also NPCs. Both illustrious individuals as well as 'all spell names' are
considered closed content either through PI or (nonsensicly) non-inclusion
in the SRD.
The crux of the question i
In a message dated 2/20/2004 3:28:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
Does it matter if you know? What are you proposing doing?
I would strongly argue for the position that if the spell reference and the deity information were in the same volume, then whether or not yo
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:26:35 -0500
"DarkTouch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Venca is the undead diety of greyhawk. Wizards releases a book that
> is OGC with Venca listed as PI so I can't use him in my product.
> This same book also has a number of spells in it that are directly
> related to ou
In practice, I would instead simply replace all
references to John with references to Jason and would ignore the fact that John
ever existed because John is PI and I can't use him in my product.
Let's put it a little differently.
Venca is the undead diety of greyhawk. Wizards
releases a b
In a message dated 2/20/2004 11:19:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This actually extends beyond Closed/PI content; For instance, converting a
creature from Palladium (where OGC/PI are meaningless terms) and publishing
it as OGC (without specific license from Palladium to do
In a message dated 2/20/2004 10:23:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then I can say: In this context for my product X=Jason and based on the [X][A] spell description that's Jason's Fire Missle.
Umm, I'd recommend using plain English instead of pseudo-code to describe the PI.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:31:59 +
Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If I try to copy/derive from/distribute something that isn't mine
> to do so, it's not legal anyway.
>
> Does section 5 simply make this explicit to people (which is still
> a good thing, as many people don't seem to get
On 20 Feb 2004, at 16:23, Spike Y Jones wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:18:32 -0500
"jdomsalla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My reading of this is that it makes explicit that you are in the
wrong if you take someone else's Closed Content or Product
Identity, reprint it in you book, and then declare it
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:18:32 -0500
"jdomsalla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My reading of this is that it makes explicit that you are in the
> > wrong if you take someone else's Closed Content or Product
> > Identity, reprint it in you book, and then declare it to be
> > Open Content.
>
> This
>My reading of this is that it makes explicit that you are in the wrong if
you take someone else's Closed Content or Product Identity, reprint it in
you book, and then declare it to be Open Content.
This actually extends beyond Closed/PI content; For instance, converting a
creature from Palladium
If we're tossing around these theories. I have a
question about this as regards some stuff I've been working on.
Does PI allow for Variable replacement or is it
simple white-out?
Example:
I have a particular book that has a couple
of spells and npcs that I want to reuse. The names of the
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:46:34 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The white-out theory would also require you to replace the word
> > "eclipse" anywhere else it appears in the text of your book.
>
> Actually, that's the "forbidden terms" theory.
Yes, Lee, you're correct again.
I'm sorry everyone
In a message dated 2/20/2004 9:35:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
"eclipse" anywhere else it appears in the text of your book, using
"occultation of the sun by the moon" when referring to the celestial
occurence, and "overshadowing of celebrity" when used in a career
sense
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:34:54 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > (And the suggestion that he buy a copy of both Book Y and "Lee's
> > Book of Superheroes" and then spend some hours line-by-line
> > cross-checking the two to see what material is common to the two
> > of them is ridiculous.)
>
> Ju
In a message dated 2/20/2004 9:31:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(And the suggestion that he buy a copy of both Book Y and "Lee's Book
of Superheroes" and then spend some hours line-by-line cross-checking
the two to see what material is common to the two of them is
ridiculo
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:30:33 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 2/20/2004 2:38:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > For example looking through the spells I see one called
> > Eclipse. Given that the spell causes an eclipse I am stumped
> > as to how you
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:17:58 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> If there are PI licenses, then you probably have to specifically
> note which portions of the text are PI and belong to someone else.
>
> So, for example, let's say I come up with a superhero called the
> "Great Guffaw". I PI his nam
In a message dated 2/20/2004 2:38:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
Try:
"Blotting Out the Sun"
"Darkness Falls Across the Land"
"Shadowy Hand of Hidden Sun"
"Creeping Shadow of the Stolen Sun"
Ars Magica proves time and time again that creative names for otherwise munda
In a message dated 2/20/2004 2:38:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<* A 2014 OGL publication has PI licences from 10 products, five of which are out of print.
* You want to reuse 1 spell, that you know is OGC but because of those 10 licences you
will need to track down all t
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Rob Myers wrote:
> I've a question about section 5 of the OGL: "Representation of
> authority to contribute".
> Surely by publishing something you are implicitly claiming that you
> have the right to do so? Does an explicit claim that you are the author
> or hold the rights
Hello to the list.
I've a question about section 5 of the OGL: "Representation of
authority to contribute".
Surely by publishing something you are implicitly claiming that you
have the right to do so? Does an explicit claim that you are the author
or hold the rights simply make this clear to th
30 matches
Mail list logo
