Re: [OGF-L] Work=OGC+PI+nothing else?

2005-03-15 Thread HUDarklord
In a message dated 3/15/2005 6:57:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: < It doesn't use the word work, because other conditions of the OGL apply to the work but the license to "use" the content only apply to the OGC in the work. >> Algebra OGC = any work covered by the license

RE: [OGF-L] Work=OGC+PI+nothing else?

2005-03-15 Thread Weldon Dodd
> This is based on the verbatim statements of the license saying that > any work covered by the license is OGC except for the parts that are PI. I think you could argue that the license says a few things about OGC and we should evaluate these statements together to arrive at a different conclusion

Re: [OGF-L] Work=OGC+PI+nothing else?

2005-03-15 Thread HUDarklord
In a message dated 3/15/2005 9:13:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: < Gaming Content. I think that's the third content. >> It could just as easily be PI.  Besides.  I've never said a collected work or compilation couldn't contain non-OGC and non-PI.  I've said the license sa

Re: [OGF-L] Work=OGC+PI+nothing else?

2005-03-15 Thread Nicholas H.M. Caldwell
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: <> From the Mandatory Requirements of the d20 Guide: "A minimum of 5% of the text of a Covered Product must be Open Game Content and must comply with the terms of the Open Gaming License version 1.0a." Which means that up to 95% of a d20 Covered Pro

Re: [OGF-L] Work=OGC+PI+nothing else?

2005-03-15 Thread HUDarklord
In a message dated 3/14/2005 9:55:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: < >> If 99 out of 100 people thinks you should do something, but 1 person does not, and the 99 are doing something that goes against a clear, unambiguous, explicit definition in the contract, then the 99 are

Re: [OGF-L] Nobody except the content owner and WotC can take you tocourt?

2005-03-15 Thread HUDarklord
In a message dated 3/14/2005 9:55:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: <   >> Right, but each party can only sue for things that damage themselves.  If I'm handing Green Ronin IP in a perfectly fine way, but botching the Mongoose IP then Mongoose is likely the only one who can s

Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)

2005-03-15 Thread HUDarklord
In a message dated 3/14/2005 9:55:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So where have I got this wrong? Is adding this sort of statement actually a "registration" or are you saying that declaration of copyright is not sufficient to gain protection? David, this is simple.  When

Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)

2005-03-15 Thread HUDarklord
In a message dated 3/14/2005 9:55:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: <> In _all_ parts of the USA. << but does this make copyright protection null and void if you *don't* register it? >> No, you just can't pursue some legal solutions until after you register.  So, if some