Clark Peterson wrote:
Yes, PI is not OGC but there is (presumptively) no
need to declare as PI anything that is not mixed with
OGC. (Now, I have certainly PId stuff that isnt mixed
with OGC, but that is another story)
I think the reason this was done was to make
designations easy.
I think that
> Just want to get that straight - for the record ...
>
> Clark?
I think PI is meant to allow protection of content
that is "inextricably mixed in" with OGC. Thus, if the
content is not OGC, there is no need to apply PI
protection to it (though some do, for various reasons,
such as perhaps we are
At 4:09 + 2/23/04, Faustus von Goethe wrote:
Exactly! Which is why I'd like people to start making it perfectly
clear - PI is *not* a subset of OGC. Exactly the opposite. "PI is a
set of content that is specifically excluded from OGC." Doug said it
well;
Here's the problem:
The license says
Exactly! Which is why I'd like people to start making it perfectly clear -
PI is *not* a subset of OGC. Exactly the opposite. "PI is a set of content
that is specifically excluded from OGC." Doug said it well;
PI and OGC are contradictory states that content within a work can be
in. Any given
In a message dated 2/22/2004 7:59:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
PI and OGC and contradictory states that content within a work can be
in. Any given part of a work can EITHER be PI or OGC--never, ever
both. If it looks like there's an overlap, assume that it's PI.
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think it's semantics at all. If PI is a sub-set of OGC then
it is not subject to distribution limitations. If it is completely
different from OGC then it is subject to restrictions on distributions.
PI isn't OGC, and neither is it a "sub-set" of OGC.
PI and OG
In a message dated 2/22/2004 6:30:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
it should/could be the case. Perhaps it is semantics.
>>
I don't think it's semantics at all. If PI is a sub-set of OGC then it is not subject to distribution limitations. If it is completely different fr
Clark, you keep doing this and I keep trying to point out that I don't think
it should/could be the case. Perhaps it is semantics.
[CLARK SAID, PI is ...]
2. OGL-covered content that is OGC but has been designated as PI
You have to be clear on this.
PI is *NOT* Open Game Content. PI is "content
> One thing that I'm wondering: if one source you
> borrow from was
> released under OGL v1.0 and another was released
> under OGL v1.0a, do
> you have to include both v1.0 and v1.0a in your own
> Section 15
> (independent of whatever version of the license
> you're releasing your
> own book under)
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Clark Peterson wrote:
> > You don't have to list the SRD three times or Bob's
> > Big Book of Bugs twice. You only have to list each work once.
>
> I agree with this. I think pretty much everyone agrees
> with this. It would be nice to have Andy or a current
> WotC guy chime
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Fred wrote:
> > But maybe I'm naive: I just really, really haven't seen any signs
> > of someone really wanting to "cripple" their OGC and prevent
> > reuse. I see some practices that some people describe as
> > crippling. I see some people theorize (in a way that sometimes
>
> Every so often, it's useful to point out that a work
> licensed under the Open
> Game License (from Wizards of the Coast -- hi,
> woodelf!) can have THREE
> types of content:
>
> * Material that is declared and released under the
> OGL as Open Game Content,
> and can be freely reused according t
> But maybe I'm naïve: I just really, really haven't
> seen any signs of someone
> really wanting to "cripple" their OGC and prevent
> reuse.
Listen, if I wanted to cripple OGC I could. I would do
it in a bunch of ways, not just one way. So when
someone singles out a license or an overbroad PI, t
> You don't have to list the SRD three times or Bob's
> Big Book of Bugs twice.
> You only have to list each work once. But this is
> important: CHECK WITH YOUR
> LAWYER FIRST! The license does not explicitly allow
> this exception; it's
> just a commonly accepted convention to avoid The
> Section
In a message dated 2/22/04 12:27:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
Wrong, what Clark is defending is his _clear_right_ under the license to do what he did. He doesn't want to be hazed for it. And you know, I think he's right. He's given a LOT of OGC and suggestions to o
--- "Martin L. Shoemaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But maybe I'm naïve: I just really, really haven't seen any signs of
someone
> really wanting to "cripple" their OGC and prevent reuse. I see some
> practices that some people describe as crippling. I see some people theorize
> (in a way that
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Martin L. Shoemaker
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 10:58 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
I know: bad form to reply to myself. But I forgot to mention the one
exception.
> Please read the lic
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 1:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
>
> > Perhaps a middle way: put "All spell names from Relics & Rituals are
> > used b
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Spike Y Jones
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Section 5
>
> > If I try to copy/derive from/distribute something that
> isn't mine to
> > do so, it's not legal anyway.
> >
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 2:01 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
>
> > There is a parallel here to the fact that there are spells in the
> > Player's Handbook called "Mord
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think PI is a useful part of the OGL, but don't see any point in
> using it to defend something in a product UNLESS that thing is a
> valuble part of your campaign setting. And if I did think something
> was worth PIing then I wouldn't want to relea
21 matches
Mail list logo
