Are these commercial or non-commercial products? Print or PDF? Sorry if this is
a lot of questions, but like I said in an earlier email it doesn't seem that I
have seen anything about this outside of this list.
Chris Helton
- Original Message
From: Tom Caudron <[EMAIL PROTEC
Tom,
Out of curiosity, who is using this Prometheus logo/license? Outside of this
list I've never seen it.
Chris Helton
- Original Message
From: Tom Caudron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006
--- Bryant Durrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As opposed to the translucent simplicity of the D20
> SRD. *grin*
The SRD is pretty simple: if it is in the SRD then it
is open. What could be simpler?
Do you actually mean the OGL?
--- avatar of Darkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Must have missed it in the mess.
> So what's your product and what are you worried
> about?
I'm not worried about anything. I posted to a thread
on RPG.net where a person was asking about using the
terms "beholder" and "mind flayer" and I said th
--- avatar of Darkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm afraid that for the hard questions you're not
> going to find much more than intellectual debate
> as none of this has ever gone to court to
> have any real legal precedent.
Ironically, I haven't been speaking in hypotheticals.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> BTW -- I sometimes do switch sides on issues when I
> play devil's advocate.
> Read the archives and you'll see me do that. In
> general, though, I make it
> pretty obvious when I'm trying to play on both sides
> of the fence to evoke
> commentary for either or b
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Open Game Content" means ... ANY WORK COVERED BY
> THIS LICENSE... but specifically excludes Product
> Identity.
Do you mean this section?
"'Open Game Content' means the game mechanic and
includes the methods, procedures, processes and
routines to the extent suc
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Right, but the license says any WORK covered by the
> OGL is 100% OGC except the parts that are PI.
Once again, would you please quote the relevant
section of the OGL that states this, please? I have
re-read the OGL a number of times today, during the
course of this
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The license is explicit that for a covered work it's
> all 100% OGC except the parts that are PI.
And where does it say that the covered work is 100%
OGC, except for the parts that are PI?
>From section 1(d):"'Open Game Content' means the game
mechanic and includes
--- Weldon Dodd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, you've lost me too. The license says that any
> material that is eligible to be PI must be declared
> to be PI and must be excluded from OGC to
> actually be PI. It must also appear in a work
> licensed under the OGL to be
> covered by the OGL. Un
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> You said, and I quote: "These definitions are not
> limited to only game
> companies, game lines, or any companies that are
> involved with the OGL. Read what it
> says, and you will see that you are misinterpreting
> this. You will notice
> that the definition
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> PI overrides fair use. Also the "no compatibility
> declarations" clause overrides fair use.
Um...no. You can't override a law with a contract or a
license. There are legal precedence for this.
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The license says clearly that something must be
> identified. Nobody in two different forums has
> agreed with you that PI doesn't have to be clearly
> identified.
Attribute one more statement to me that I have not
made and you will understand exactly how well I
u
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That's not the question. The question is whether a
> person making said declaration has any LEGAL
> STANDING to enforce his declaration under the
> license.
My godyes! If you violate the definitions of
Product Identity under the OGL then you are violating
copy
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You've claimed that people don't have to declare PI
> for it to be PI. By
> default then, anything on the PI list is PI whether
> or not it is declared as PI,
Again, you are putting words into my mouth to attempt
to create a nondefensible stance. You are incorrect
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you aren't bound by the OGL and you make a PI
> declaration, you can do it
> all day long until you are blue in the face.
Again, you are showing your ignorance of the issues.
Have you ever heard of copyright and/or trademark
infringement? It happens all the tim
--- avatar of Darkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think you really need to be bound to the OGL
> in order to make a declaration of PI. The license
> seems to only indicate that you have to
> be the owner of the PI in order to make that
> declaration. On the other hand, the license does
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> CJH -- if you think that, even if people don't
> declare spell names, creatures, etc. as PI for
> them to be PI then you aren't borrowing much OGC any
> time soon. Because your default assumption is that
> those things are ALWAYS PI, whether or not they
> are dec
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No, it really doesn't address the scope at all. It
> just says that PI declared as PI is PI. That
doesn't
> answer the key question:
Can you please quote the section of the OGL where it
says what you are trying to say it says? You can
believe my reading or not, ho
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> However, there's nothing saying explicitly that PI
> has to be declared by anyone in particular. I was
> thinking that you had to be a party to the contract
> to declare PI, but then I asked myself this
> question: can a third party beneficiary declare PI
> withou
--- "Michael P. Hopcroft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> RThe message is clear: if you donot have access to a
> multi-million-dollar IP lawyer, you should not be in
> any sort of
> creative enterprise. In other words, if you haven't
> already made enough
> money to defend yourself against an agress
--- "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Relevance: When considering "how much of a game
> system can be used without permission", the answer
> might soon be "virtually none".
But if you are going to be respectful of copyright and
intellectual property of others, that should have been
t
22 matches
Mail list logo
