On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, David Shepheard wrote:
> Even the d20 System logo isn't entirely useful for customers as it gets used
> for both fantasy and futuristic games. A product with the d20 System logo
> might be compatible with Dungeons and Dragons or d20 Modern. The only way to
> really tell if
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Tom Caudron wrote:
> Clark said, ""Terms" may not change, but enforcement sure does."
>
> The Prometheus project violates no part of the OGL of which I am aware,
> which was the implied claim of the original email to which I was
> replying. In the context of that comment, I
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
> > The bottom line truth is that there was very little
> > significant reuse of OGC.
> >
> I think I'll place blame for this most on a failing in the OGL -- there
> was no easy way to say "my book uses Monte Cook's rules" without
> actually asking
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, The Sigil wrote:
> Enlightened
> self-interest would push most publishers together to adopt the same
> bug-fixes?
>
> It will NEVER happen. One of the "talking points" that had everyone excited
> about the OGL was that we were likely to see a whole bunch of rules and
> id
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Tavis Allison wrote:
> > Is there a reason why a simple work-for-hire agreement wouldn't meet
> > all of the author's needs in this instance?
>
> The right to be credited as the author of the work is an important one that
> the OGL handles poorly but that work-for-hire negate
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Tavis Allison wrote:
> Work for hire contracts are the ordinary solution to a publisher's needs in
> gaming, but it seems to me that a contract based on an author being paid to
> develop OGC, which anyone can then reuse under the OGL, does a better job of
> meeting the desires
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Tim Dugger wrote:
> > If this is the case, then there's no such thing as the "third type
> > of content" and a whole bunch of stuff has been published under
> > the OGL using an incorrect interpretation of the license.
>
> You have a "work", as defined by Ryan to be an entire
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
> >If this is the case, then there's no such thing as the "third type of
> >content" and a whole bunch of stuff has been published under the OGL
> >using an incorrect interpretation of the license.
>
> Nope. Anything not identified as required in Sect
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
> > Can I say the "work" is just chapters 2 and 4? Or, in
> > your view, does the "work" mean the whole book?
>
> The intent of the license is that it apply to all chapters.
>
> This is a required interpretation. Otherwise, it would be possible to put
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Tim Dugger wrote:
> So we would have the following:
> 1) OGC
> 2) PI
> 3) Non-OGC, Non-PI Material
>
> For #3, it is neither OGC nor PI, and is covered by normal copyright
> law, except where it is superceded by the limitations from the OGL.
>
> Would that be a better way o
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Tim Dugger wrote:
> > OGC = COVERED WORK - PI
> > OR
> > COVERED WORK = OGC + PI
>
> Where I was saying
>
> Covered Work = OGC + PI + whatever is left over and not covered
> by the previous two terms (this would be covered by standard
> copyright law).
>
> Thus if a pers
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Clark Peterson wrote:
> I'd be surprised if Mongoose even felt you needed to
> ask permission to use words that are obviously in the
> public domain (and obviously I am only talking about
> words and names that are actually in the public
> domain).
I agree with you that reaso
Here's another one to read and think about.
On the credits page at the front of The Tome of Horrors, there is
a standard, real-world copyright notice: "(c) 2002 Necromancer Games,
Inc. All rights reserved" and a list of trademarks and such.
On the License page at the back of the book is their Sec
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If the legalese is too vague, consider this. Tim, tomorrow you start a brand
> new company. You release a product. You don't use the OGL. But you write
> inside the front cover, "I feel that I am allowed to declare all my
> characters
> and po
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Jonathan M. Thompson wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a book that is full of poisons for d20?
Pale Designs: A Poisoner's Handbook, Bastion Press
Spike Y Jones
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, David Shepheard wrote:
> If WotC decide to abandon the d20 publishers, then in the short term some publishers
> would
> probably be pushed out, or switch to publishing their own gaming systems instead of
> using
> the OGL, but in the long term the OGL community might even be
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> < covered work itself, not other things that aren't released under the
> license (i.e., things without a copy of the license or a Section 15
> update) that may be related to the covered product. Therefore your
> advertising, your website, your spoken
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I found a reference to the incident (below), but none of the actual posts..
> > Anyone have better archive skills than me, or remember the crap-stirring
> > enough to give a synopsis?
>
> I think the press release stuff came up around the Book of
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Michael P. Hopcroft 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 agressive and
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Damian wrote:
> > There is. And apparently it has succeeded in being subtle enough that
> > it's not obvious: one of them always uses "you", while the other
> > always uses "your character" (right now, i forget which is which, and
> > i don't feel like checking because it does
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Tavis Allison wrote:
> Behemoth3, Inc. enthusiastically supports the open source licensing
> movement, and we salute the creators of the Open Game License for
> this revolutionary contribution to our community. In this spirit we
> are honored to release sections of this book a
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Tavis Allison wrote:
>
> For my part, I'd like to authorize the use of an officially
> abbreviated version of the title - e.g. Horde Book 1 instead of the
> mouthful Masters and Minions Horde Book 2: Maze of the Minotaur. I'd
> prefer that the citation appeared in the text al
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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".
>
> Now, it's not more vague than the OGL itself (since that's a protectable
> category), but so m
On Sun, 30 May 2004, Ian Hewitt wrote:
> Would it be incredibly complicated to work with different
> individuals to develop the world? My thoughts are that if it were
> to be published at some time in the future contracts and payment may
> lead to confusing legal issues that I would be ill equippe
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
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
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think that it would be a good idea (if the OGL allows it) for
> publishers to add their website addresses to their section 15 copyright declarations
> so
> that anyone using OGL can go there and see if there is an errata or web enhancement.
The OG
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not too up on when the Wizard of Oz was written so perhaps the
> copyright had run out when they made the Zardos.
Zardoz (with a "z", not an "s") was written in 1972. The first Wizard
of Oz book is copyright 1900. I don't know when Baum died or wh
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1) Gene Roddenberry deliberately allowed small amateur publications with Star Trek
> stories
> in the years after the series got cancelled (I believe that he had the "political"
> motive
> of building up a fan demand for Paramount to give him his jo
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, woodelf wrote:
> Perhaps a strict, literal reading of the license would forbid
> licensing PI. I don't know. It certainly wouldn't be the spirit of
> the license, which is to forbid additional restrictions--letting you
> use something that you can't otherwise use can hardl
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Clark Peterson wrote:
> > You don't have to list the SRD three times or Bob's
> > Big Book of Bugs twice. You only have to list each work once.
>
> I agree with this. I think pretty much everyone agrees
> with this. It would be nice to have Andy or a current
> WotC guy chime
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Fred wrote:
> > But maybe I'm naive: I just really, really haven't seen any signs
> > of someone really wanting to "cripple" their OGC and prevent
> > reuse. I see some practices that some people describe as
> > crippling. I see some people theorize (in a way that sometimes
>
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think PI is a useful part of the OGL, but don't see any point in
> using it to defend something in a product UNLESS that thing is a
> valuble part of your campaign setting. And if I did think something
> was worth PIing then I wouldn't want to relea
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Rob Myers wrote:
> I've a question about section 5 of the OGL: "Representation of
> authority to contribute".
> Surely by publishing something you are implicitly claiming that you
> have the right to do so? Does an explicit claim that you are the author
> or hold the rights
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Clark Peterson wrote:
> > The problem is that many of the spell names (the
> > vast majority in the case of what's been submitted to me) -- are extremely
> > generic names. Names that given the function of the spell, are really the
> > best, most natural, names for what those
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, jdomsalla wrote:
> A source I'm drawing from has the following S15 entry:
>
> [Product Name] and the above designated Product Identity are Copyright
> [Year], [Publisher].
>
> Now, is it just me, or is there a problem with putting this line into my
> material? After all, th
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, woodelf wrote:
> If i put on my book "This game product is not
> compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd Edition." am i in the clear
> with the "no trademarks for compatibility/co-adaptability" clause?
> Assuming this is a true claim--i'm envisioning a game book that is
> d
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, woodelf wrote:
>
> Well, i'll presume that Dragon is now a self-supporting entity--i
> believe the editor has said as much--since i don't think Paizo has
> any non-magazine game revenue to prop it up with. But for the
> majority of its history, scuttlebut has it that it w
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Leroy Van Camp III wrote:
> > *If* Ryan is correct and WotC is still following that opinion, and
> > lots of products start showing up that describe chargen in other ways
> > (such as through point builds), they'll just change the license.
> > Unlike the WotC OGL, they c
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If that's the case, and your scope argument is interesting, then the vast
> majority of PI is trivial to circumvent unless it is already protected by other
> laws (like trademark or copyright).
>
> Because honestly, if you can source exactly the sa
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I believe that either the license needs to be reformed to
> drop things that can't be trademarked or copyrighted from the PI list
>
> OR
>
> The list goes far beyond normal copyright and trademark protections and can
> extend to things which norma
Isn't this whole discussion mooted by the fact that a WotC
representative was quoted about 15 or 20 posts ago as saying words to
the effect of, "Yeah, it's a mistake; we'll have to fix it"?
Spike Y Jones
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://m
43 matches
Mail list logo
