This could just be a problem with your mail client. I use Firefox
myself and for those people you mentioned (and a few others I've
noticed), it sends a copy both to the reply-to entry
(ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org) and the original sender.
I've not seen any situation though where it
Regardless, the license specifically says it should be the copyright
notice from your OGC which is included in the section 15.
I never actually noticed it in the license (or atleast no one has
emphasised it that much), but I do see where it says that the copyright
notice is intended to
Is it just me, or does anyone else find this incredibly vague as a PI
designation?
All thematic elements are PI and everything else is OGC.
I agree. Personally, if I was deriving off a product that used that
PI/OGC declaration, I'd more or less ignore it. If you don't want to
tell me what
Well, the Freedom of Contract seems to be more restricted in some EU
countries compared to the US. As I have said before, the provisions made
in the second sentence of section 7 have no legal validity in Sweden -
period. This has nothing to do with thinking that the trade-off is not
worth it
Other than the fact that the OGL expressly forbids you from doing what
you talk about!
Actually, the OGL doesn't forbid it, but depending on the content in the
document, you may not be able to release the same content under the
multiple licenses. For instance, content derived from the SRD
The question I have is what specifically I have to do in order to
release it under the Open Gaming Licence - is it simply a matter of copy
and pasting the legal text into the RTF? What parts of it do I need to
change?
Simply attach the text of the OGL somewhere (usually the end of the
Adding my own comments to the discussion.
PI was made to keep us publishers happy who were worried about losting
control over stuff in sections that were OGC.
More to the point, one reason for PI was to make the work more
aesthetically pleasing. A couple suggestions to mark what was OGC
I can't remember if it was here or on OGF-D20-l, but i pointed out to
just such a comment that it may not matter what WotC believes, if it is
in conflict with the license.
It was one of these two lists.
Unlike the D20STL, they can't change it at a whim, so the actual written
meaning matters,
What is PI? We don't know. It's either stuff you're forbidden from
using, or stuff that is functionally not in the source when reusing.
Something I brought up before:
Based on the 3.5 SRD I believe WotC interprets PI as being terms that
are forbidden from any work that derives off of the
