On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:51:33 -0400
Doug Meerschaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a grand total of two good ideas for a revision of the OGL.
>
> * Define "Ownership".
>
> * Specifically allow attribution of OGC to specific sources.
I'm sure Woodelf and some others have compiled longer lis
Matthew Hector wrote:
Since the license already defines other terms, it would certainly be useful
to have "owenership" defined for purpses of the OGL in a later version.
So, that's a grand total of two good ideas for a revision of the OGL.
* Define "Ownership".
* Specifically allow attribu
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
Charles Greathouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Problem is, there is no good way to do a designation
> > like that. It is either PI or it isnt. I guess a
> > publisher could say, "...and the name Arthur, but only
> > to the extent that name reflects an NP
Since the license already defines other terms, it would certainly be useful
to have "owenership" defined for purpses of the OGL in a later version. One
of my biggest problems with the license as a whole is that while it avoids
unnecessary legalease and is largely human-readable (yay!), it leaves a
I'm reminded of "d20 (when used as a trademark)" from the SRD.
Charles Greathouse
--- Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that it is possible to PI a name in
> > conjunction with the character
> > that name represents, sure. I just don't think the
> > name in and of itself is
>
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:30:43 -0500
"Matthew Hector" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As far as the IP laws themselves are concerned, it would seem a lot
> of them are superseded by the OGL.
Yes, indeed. The OGL is a license that allows you to make use of some
copyrighted material that you might n
> But as you correctly state, Mongoose really has no
> ownership of words like "Fir Bolg" (or firbolg),
> "Fomorian," or even "enech," or "cromlech," the last
> two being the Gaelic word for regular English terms
> (it'd be like me PI-ing the Spanish version of those
> words). Their interpretation
> I think that it is possible to PI a name in
> conjunction with the character
> that name represents, sure. I just don't think the
> name in and of itself is
> the only thing that merits protection.
Problem is, there is no good way to do a designation
like that. It is either PI or it isnt. I
> It seems pretty common sense to me that if they both> match the public domain inspired concept that there is> no problem. But it seems to me that if they both match the public domain-inspired concept then Mongoose shouldn't have claimed "firbolg" as PI since they have no ownership grounds.
Thus
Spike Y Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Clark Peterson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> But since Mongoose
>>> itself derived those elements in part from the public domain
>>> sources, how is one to determine whether or not Daniel's
>>> interpretation of, say, Firbolgs is
" So you would agree with some of the posters of the last few days that
most public domain words can't be PIed (a position I agree with), but
you disagree about the possibility of PIing a name derivable from a
public domain source as it applies to a particular character? (That
is, since the word "S
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But since Mongoose
> > itself derived those elements in part from the
> > public domain sources,
> > how is one to determine whether or not Daniel's
> > interpretation of,
> > say, Firbolgs is safely public doma
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:04:53 -0400
Brett Sanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:09:02AM -0400, Spike Y Jones wrote:
> > I still say the easiest course is likely to be to get in touch
> > with Mongoose and see what can be worked out.
>
> It certainly would be the easiest co
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:09:02AM -0400, Spike Y Jones wrote:
> I still say the easiest course is likely to be to get in touch with
> Mongoose and see what can be worked out.
It certainly would be the easiest course in this case. But:
1) Having to ask permission defeats the purpose of a general
> But since Mongoose
> itself derived those elements in part from the
> public domain sources,
> how is one to determine whether or not Daniel's
> interpretation of,
> say, Firbolgs is safely public domain or breachedly
> Mongoose-derived?
It seems pretty common sense to me that if they both
match
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:25:08 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Read my most recent post on the 3 ways you can claim some copyright
> over a name.
Your follow-up post arrived just after I sent mine out; oh well.
> You CAN PI a name as it applies to a very specific character, but
> then your PI p
In a message dated 8/15/2005 9:16:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
most public domain words can't be PIed (a position I agree with), but
you disagree about the possibility of PIing a name derivable from a
public domain source as it applies to a particular character? (That
i
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:50:15 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> My literal reading of the PI definition says to declare PI it must
> be ownable and you must own it. Meaning you can't declare public
> domain stuff per se.
So you would agree with some of the posters of the last few days that
most
Guys, maybe somebody cares to cite some IP law on this, but I thought that under IP law you can own a name under only three circumstances:
a) it is a trademark of yours
b) you can own a name in specific connection with a very distinct character concept, but that ownership is then severed when the
In a message dated 8/14/2005 10:23:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
to indicate this is the case.>>
My literal reading of the PI definition says to declare PI it must be ownable and you must own it. Meaning you can't declare public domain stuff per se.
<
disallow claim
20 matches
Mail list logo
