At 20:59 -0400 4/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you can publish game mechanics in a volume that contains an
OGL'd work where the game mechanics aren't released as OGC.
Consider that a magazine or other fanzines may have a single
advertisement or article that is a covered work. The magazin
At 18:37 -0700 4/11/04, Michael Cortez wrote:
This definition by Lee, I think is fairly complete in defining that such a
thing exists. The closed content is simply the stuff that is not part of
the "defined/covered work" -- which may or may not be different from what
the US Copyright office usual
"Bored of the Rings" and "Troops" are both protected by the parody defense
to copyright infringement. Non-parody Star Wars fan films are protected by
Lucas' balancing their desire to protect their IP aginst negative public
opinion. The LARPS you mention are protected primarily by the fact no one
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Mucchiello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Re: Releasing a new system under the OGL
> >It is only in the US that you may not create derivate works without
> >asking for permission, in
- Original Message -
From: "Lizard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: SV: [Ogf-l] Re: Releasing a new system under the OGL
> Well, yes. There is no a priori censorship in the US; there is no
> government office to which thing
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Mucchiello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Re: Releasing a new system under the OGL
> The clause we're talking about removing is the only
> benefit the source licensor gets out of the
- Original Message -
From: "woodelf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 9:37 AM
Subject: re[6]: [Ogf-l] Re: Releasing a new system under the OGL
> What about this: a website. The content appears on one or more
> distinct webpages. The licenses each
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> OGC is defined as the work covered by the license except that parts declared
> as PI. That's the definition of OGC. If I have no PI, then the work
> covered
> by the license, my text in section 2, must be 100% OGC. Then I have to mark
> 100% of it as OGC.
No, it
Look at the licence again.
The definition of OGC includes two things: Game mechanics and the 'covered
work'... game mechanics aren't listed in the phrase that mentions the covered work.
=
"Let me be clear: Analysts differed on
In a message dated 4/11/2004 9:37:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
thing exists. The closed content is simply the stuff that is not part of
the "defined/covered work" -- which may or may not be different from what
the US Copyright office usually defines as a "Work."
>>
I
>> "This collection of essays constitutes a compilation.
>> While the compilation as a whole is not covered by the
>> OGL, the text of section 2 constitutes a work which is
>> covered by the OGL. The art in section 2 constitutes
>> a separate work which is not covered by the OGL."
>> In th
In a message dated 4/11/2004 5:49:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
to OGC being the entire work save PI. So why do
we need to define what OGC is (the whole first
part of 1(d)) if it's the entirety of the work
that isn't PI?
>>
I presumed solely for clarity. Also, if yo
In a message dated 4/11/2004 11:32:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
statement from WotC in an FAQ or in a list debate where they state
that they interpret the OGL to not include the possibility of closed
content?
>>
Can you point me to a single line of the license itself
In a message dated 4/11/2004 12:24:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
he believes that no rules can be PIed or Closed.
>>
I think I've heard Ryan and Clark both say that you can't PI rules. Perhaps I am mistaken. I should go check the archives at some point.
<
in Mutants
In a message dated 4/11/2004 11:48:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
mechanics plus all work covered by the license) minus anything declared as PI.
This is why I say you pretty much can't publish game mechanics under the OGL
and keep them closed.
>>
But you can publish gam
At 8:47 -0700 4/11/04, Fred wrote:
"(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods,
procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody
the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any
additional content clearly identified as
At 11:31 -0400 4/11/04, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This topic has been debated on this list (among others) for years
now. Hundreds of books have been published using the OGL. Is there
even one publisher (the people who have their money on the line,
and who hopefully have consulted with actual lawy
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred
>
> I think this whole debate about what can and can't be OGC
> needs to be informed by the definition of OGC from the
> license:
>
> "(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes
> the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the
Let's see; the regulations in 4 § 2 par. seems to forbid someone to misrepresent
himself as the owner or licensee of the trademark he is referring to. I see only a
restriction of the use of trademarks there. How can you say that this paragraph gives
you an unrevocable right to use the trademarks
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My concern is that I've
> been told any number of times on this list that rules, etc. can't be PI'd and
> that every major publisher agrees. They clearly don't.
I doubt that you've ever heard a major publisher say on this list that
he believes tha
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If people are really concerned about publishers using the OGL to
> claim PI on terms couldn't they just use the principle of PI against
> itself? Is there anything stopping someone from using an
> "Anti-PI" PI licence to stop publishers that cripple O
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 4/11/2004 11:08:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > If you're publishing under the OGL, though, anything you create that is
> > based
> > on OGC material (such as the D20 SRD) must also be OGC. That's how the
> > lice
I think this whole debate about what can and can't be OGC needs to be informed
by the definition of OGC from the license:
"(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods,
procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody
the Product Identity an
In a message dated 4/11/2004 11:15:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
commonly known as "Closed content". The PI designation is merely a
convenience that allows authors to use things within an open chapter without
making them open.
>>
No, it makes no implication at all, oth
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Absolutely not true. If I have a work that consists of
> > ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ and I designate W as product identity and N to Z
> > as open content, then A to M is closed content.
>
> Based on what lines of the license? The license explici
In a message dated 4/11/2004 11:08:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you're publishing under the OGL, though, anything you create that is based
on OGC material (such as the D20 SRD) must also be OGC. That's how the
license is written.
Show me.
Lee
__
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 4/10/2004 7:28:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Absolutely not true. If I have a work that consists of
> > ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ and I designate W as product identity and N to
> > Z as open content, then A to M
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you have a value added
> portion
> and can clearly separate what you have added from what came before you, then
> you have identified material you have contributed and over which you may be
> able to declare copyright if its copyrightable.
You can certainly dec
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 4/10/2004 10:13:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > What I'm saying is ... any rules that
> > you build that are made to interlock with [OGC] are going to have to use
> > OGC ideas from that system, and as a result, the
In a message dated 4/11/2004 8:09:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
Given that you quoted me, that's not my concern. My concern is that I've been told any number of times on this list that rules, etc. can't be PI'd and that every major publisher agrees. They clearly don'
In a message dated 4/10/2004 10:13:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I'm saying is that if you're publishing something that's intended to be
used with some other OGL'ed system, like D20 or whatever, then any rules that
you build that are made to interlock with that are go
In a message dated 4/10/2004 7:30:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
T20 isn't based on an SRD. I'm talking about derivative works.
Why does it matter about derivative works? If you have a value added portion and can clearly separate what you have added from what came before
In a message dated 4/10/2004 7:28:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Absolutely not true. If I have a work that consists of
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ and I designate W as product identity and N to Z as
open content, then A to M is closed content.
Based on what lines of the l
At 01:06 PM 4/11/2004 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
On the other hand if
there are not any authors out there that *really* want to fight against
crippled content then you won't see this subject on the mailing list
again. I wait to be convinced that the people that dislike crippled
content a
On Sunday, April 11, 2004 9:06 AM Mikael wrote:
> I can see that Section 7 OGL contradicts 3 and 4 § of the Swedish
> Trademark Act, but how can we know that these can't be overridden
> by a contract?
>From the wording of the law we can deduct that the provisions in 3 and
4 § of the trademark act
--- Reginald Cablayan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, in the case of T20, Quiklink should not have used the well-known High
> Guard ship creation rule,
Are you saying that Quiklink didn't have the Traveller license?
I really don't think that's true.
=
**
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OGF-L] OGC in Crooks
In a message dated
4/9/2004 11:42:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>And therein we come full
circle to the great debate.Can you lock down mech
Yes you can. 4 § 2 par only says that you cannot misrepresent that trademark letting
people belive that you own it. If you use someone else's trademark, the ownership of
it still has to be clear.
Personally I find the whole discussion of the unlawfulness of 7 § OGL rather amazing.
I wish a lay
I can see that Section 7 OGL contradicts 3 and 4 § of the swedish Trademark Act, but
how can we know that these can't be overridden by a contract?
If you can override the Freedom of Speech (rather more fundmental than the Trademark
Act) with an NDA, why can't bits of the Trademark Act be overri
39 matches
Mail list logo
