Oops, sorry sent a post too fast.
>You will notice
>that the definition of Product Identity does not
>refer to the OGL, or any process
>of declaration under it."
>"Okif you read the definition
>of "Product Identity" in
>section 1 (Definitions) you will see that there is
>no burden of proo
In a message dated 3/1/2005 12:07:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
either cannot read or are just too dense to be able to
interpret what others are saying.>>
Between RPG.NET and here about 3-4 of us all think you are claiming that you don't have to declare something as PI
In a message dated 3/1/2005 12:07:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then it would appear that the matter is just that you
either cannot read or are just too dense to be able to
interpret what others are saying. Never once have I
said that there is no requriement, and those quo
<<>WotC released about 75% of
>their PHB and MM as OGC.
Correction. WotC has not released any of those three products with
any form of OGC.
What they have done is created a System Reference Document (based on
those products), and released the SRD as 100% OGC.
There is a difference.
>>
I stand c
--- [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
On 1 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re: [OGF-L] Do you have
to declare Product Identi:
> WotC released about 75% of
> their PHB and MM as OGC.
Correction. WotC has not released any of those three products with
any form of OGC.
What they have done is created a System Referenc
Green Ronin's _Advanced Bestiary_ (2004) doesn't declare PI at all, as
far as I can see. The title is identified as a trademark.
Chapters 1 and 2 are declared as Open Game Content; the book consists
entirely of these two chapters, plus a lawyer's page, a table of
contents, an appendix of chal
In a message dated 3/1/2005 11:26:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
to create a nondefensible stance. You are incorrectly
stating my opinion, and I am starting to think that
you doing it in a willful and purposeful manner.
Please stop.
>>
You said, and I quote: "These defi
--- [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
In a message dated 3/1/2005 10:43:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
anything of the sort. Where have I said that things
are "always PI"? >>
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
--- [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
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 declared as PI, and whether or not the person wh
12 matches
Mail list logo
