<>
I think I agree with that.
<<
I dont know what meaning that third definition, as you
call it, has.
>>
That's what I was afraid of. When Tim disagreed he never came up with any interpretati
Either way you read it, you have to give either little
or no meaning to something in the license.
I dont know what meaning that third definition, as you
call it, has.
I read it as some type of poorly drafted "catch all"
to cover works and derivative works even if translated
into other languages
In a message dated 9/6/2005 2:56:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
spell out the specifics if your reading is correct.
>>
So, back to my big question -- what signficance do you think we should give to the third OGC meaning?
Because your reading seems to also nullify that.
> I think you are seeing internal conflicts in the
> license, where I am seeing
> (in this one instance) finally an area where there
> is no conflict, but only
> some redundancies.
Not just reduncancies, nullities. There is no need to
spell out the specifics if your reading is correct.
Clark
In a message dated 9/6/2005 2:07:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<1. it gobbles up all other definitions. The law doesnt
like that.
>>
There are redundancies directly built into the license. Section #8 is little more than a restatement of one of the types of OGC in 1d.
Welcome to the law! Trying to harmonize something that
isnt totally able to be harmonized.
I agree the license says what it says.
But here is why your interpretation is problematic:
1. it gobbles up all other definitions. The law doesnt
like that.
2. It seems to default everything to open co
So, Clark, I'm back to the big question -- what does the third meaning of OGC mean if it doesn't mean what I think it means.
I'm pretty much always willing to be proven wrong, particularly in IP law, provided that I learn something in the process. I do civil rights law lobbying and analysis for a
> Now what do you think the words
> mean, Clark?
I'm just telling you how lawyers think. It isnt math.
It isnt venn diagrams and sets and subsets. You can
only read that phrase in conjuction with the entire
phrase. I know what you are saying logically. I get
that. But if you take your position a
> I'm willing to table that, and maybe even table that
> in your favor, ceding the
> point to your experience on the relative power of
> parties in the
> relationship.
That's a good idea, since the OGL is not by any
stretch of definition a contract of adhesion.
> It's also a contract, and you'v
In a message dated 9/6/2005 11:16:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
paraphrasing and shortening up of the language. Which,
IMHO, is pretty good support for my position that you
are ignoring other parts of the license, including
language from the definition itself.
>>
It say
> "OGC means any work covered by the License excluding
> PI".
That phrase doesnt exist in the OGL. That is your
paraphrasing and shortening up of the language. Which,
IMHO, is pretty good support for my position that you
are ignoring other parts of the license, including
language from the definiti
In a message dated 9/6/2005 1:06:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
since it's in WotC's benefit for licensed work to have more OGC and not
less whenever anyone but WotC uses it, a court should rule ambiguities
in the favor of closing the content--that is, that where it isn
Re: contractual constructions, Clark -- whether or not we agree that WotC has disproportionately more power in the contractual relationship than we do... I'm willing to table that, and maybe even table that in your favor, ceding the point to your experience on the relative power of parties in the
In a message dated 9/6/2005 9:26:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
validity of your parsing of that part of the license to come up with
the phrase in the first place.
>>
Spike, how's my parsing strange. There are 3 different meanings listed for OGC. I'm asking about one o
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:21:16 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I still haven't seen you actually cite ANY meaning of:
> "OGC means any work covered by the License excluding PI".
> What meaning do you give that phrase?
Tim won't give you a meaning of that phrase, because he disputes the
validity of
In a message dated 9/6/2005 2:26:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< IMHO, that
only isolates the definition (which seems poorly
worded to me) and seems to ignore the other sections
of the license.>>
I'm not isolating the other parts of the contract. Section #8 is simply a
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:00:29 -0400
Doug Meerschaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >And I'm not willing to come to that conclusion simply so that I
> can
> >say, "see there is a third type of content inside a covered work".
>
> So, rather than take the interpretation
Before anyone gets too mad at anyone else can we all
just agree that this is open to interpretation and we
all wish the language of the license had been a little
clearer. :)
I several reasonable views here. Now, I prefer mine
but that is just me. I can see Lee's point. IMHO, that
only isolates the
> Supreme Court precedent on the matter says that for
> contracts, and
> particularly for contracts of adhesion (contracts
> which are drafted by one party and
> presented on a "take it or leave it" basis without
> negotation), which this is,
> any vague area of the contract should be construed
> Does it matter? Doesn't the license have to stand on
> its own as a legal
> document? If we have to bring in the author (well,
> impetus for
> authorship--i believe Ryan's said that lawyers
> drafted the final
> license, based on his impetus and various internal
> discussions at WotC)
> to f
woodelf wrote:
Now, personally, i don't *like* the interpretation that there is no
non-OGC non-PI content in a covered work--it wasn't until i had the
"third type" of content explained to me that i was willing to even
accept the license as viable--but i'm not yet convinced that, should
it eve
On 5 Sep 2005 at 21:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Except that to come to that conclusion you have to utterly ignore the
> part of the license that says:
>
> "OGC means any work covered by the license excluding Product Identity"
Sorry, but that is NOT what it says. There is a whole lot more t
In a message dated 9/5/2005 10:53:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
then it becomes much trickier to sensibly chop a work up into lots of
little pieces. Let's say you have a chapter of feats, and all the feat
names are PI, and all the feat mechanics are OGC, and nothing ha
Doug Meerschaert wrote:
woodelf wrote:
Neither of those clauses in any way necessitates, or even implies,
non-OGC, non-PI content. Why refer to a "work containing OGC"?
Because it also has PI, and both "parts" are covered by that clause.
Likewise for the necessity to indicate OGC--just becau
In a message dated 9/5/2005 10:16:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
OGC and PI, it would be slightly redundant to identify both of those,
doesn't mean that there is some 3rd bit.>>
I absolutely concur 100%. And in the example of a single covered work in a collected work (
woodelf wrote:
Neither of those clauses in any way necessitates, or even implies,
non-OGC, non-PI content. Why refer to a "work containing OGC"? Because
it also has PI, and both "parts" are covered by that clause. Likewise
for the necessity to indicate OGC--just because, if a work only
contai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:21:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
I'm not sure where your trademarks are, and whether they are part of
the text of the work. So I have no idea how to answer this.
My opinion about this section of the lic
In a message dated 9/5/2005 10:01:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
you prefer one that has almost exactly the same effect?
>>
I'm not certain I'd agree that almost complying with a license is the same as complying with a license. And, depending on how a judge rules, if he
Doug Meerschaert wrote:
woodelf wrote:
Find me anything in the license itself that supports this [the third
type of content].
Section #7. "... in a work containting Open Gaming Content..."
Section #8: "If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly
indicate which portions of th
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:32:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
trademarks anywhere in the magazine to indicate compatibility or
co-adaptability.>>
I think that's true, via the "in conjunction with" clause.
<
Races for ShadowRun(tm)"?
>>
Interesting question. I'm no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I'm not willing to come to that conclusion simply so that I can
say, "see there is a third type of content inside a covered work".
So, rather than take the interpretation that the industry has adopted,
you prefer one that has almost exactly the same effect?
Talk
In a message dated 9/5/2005 7:34:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
when you realize that non-game rule content doesn't have to be PI or OGC.
>>
Except that to come to that conclusion you have to utterly ignore the part of the license that says:
"OGC means any work covered
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:40:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<>And they've made it quite clear that they don't want to prohibit a
>magazine having some WotC OGL-using articles, and some "regular" articles.
While they might like to enable that potential, the license do
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:21:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
text of this work, save the index , table of contents, and credits, is
Open Game Content." In your opinion, are you saying that my company
trademark has just been declared OGC, because it wasn't declared PI
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:21:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Tim's Question: "Why do you have to clearly
>indicate which portions of the work are OGC if the whole work is
>considered to be OGC just by putting it with the license?"
>
>
Because the work, as far as th
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:20:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
perfectly reasonable to me that you could declare a PD element as either
OGC or PI>>
While the definition of PI is poorly punctuated, it seems to read that PI must be declared as such by it's "owner". Sinc
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:20:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
dispute and the author says "i intended the license to mean X" and a
witness says "i knew the license was supposed to mean X, so used it that
way" and the defendant says "i don't know what he intended, the
woodelf wrote:
Find me anything in the license itself that supports this.
Section #7. "... in a work containting Open Gaming Content..."
Section #8: "If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly
indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open
Game Content.
David Bolack wrote:
He has also, in the past, asserted that a website is similarly hosed.
If you have a single OGL document, the entire site is contaminated.
That sounds about right, actually.
If your website has OGC on it, then you need to treat it all as a "work"
under the OGL. That is,
From: "Paul W. King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The entire site, or just that sub-directory?
In my opinion, the court will look at the way the information is presented.
If you have a directory with files in it that contain OGL material, the
files themselves are OGL, but the directory is not. This
From: "woodelf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So, a magazine that has a single OGC-containing article coudn't use
trademarks anywhere in the magazine to indicate compatibility or
co-adaptability. It couldn't have an article in that issue about "New
Races for ShadowRun(tm)"?
That's a correct interpreta
Tim Dugger wrote:
Let's take a magazine as an example of my interpretation.
Using my interpretation, the whole magazine is covered by the
license. The magazine declares three articles as OGC. It then
declares the names of characters and place names used within the
articles as PI.
So what i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For now, let's assume that we have one work, a book. Let's assume
that it is wholly non-derivative. Let's assume that the person who
wrote the book applies the OGL to it, and says, "This book, in its
entirety, is a single work covered by the Open Gaming License". Le
Tim Dugger wrote:
By my reasoning, the license would not include the following clause
--
8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must
clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distr
Tim Dugger wrote:
On 4 Sep 2005 at 16:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I wonder if the fact
that WotC hasn
Doug Meerschaert wrote:
Nope. Anything not identified as required in Section #8 and also not
noted as Product Identity is "third type of content."
Find me anything in the license itself that supports this. Sure,
there're discussions on this list--mostly attempts to make sense of
seeming con
Tim Dugger wrote:
On 4 Sep 2005 at 17:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you're saying that Ryan's interpretation is correct and that Lee's
interpretation is wrong.
hehe... You know, I am not sure anymore
Seriously, I do think that the entire product is a "covered work", so I
gues
n that sub-directory was covered.
Paul W. King
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David
Bolack
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 2:57 PM
To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
He has also, i
On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 17:20 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
> But Ryan just said that the intent of the OGL is that everything from
> cover to cover (including the covers) is "the covered work," and we
He has also, in the past, asserted that a website
In a message dated 9/5/2005 11:31:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
automatically (which pretty much equals the term "by default") OGC,
except for what is PI. At least that is what you said on the rpg.net
thread.
>>
It's sort of question whether "automatically" is an app
On 5 Sep 2005 at 9:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 9/5/2005 1:28:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > <>
>
> I don't know if "by default" is the appropriate word. I've only
> claimed that you must declare as OGC everything that you don't declare
> as PI
I'm going to dissect the definition below and show it applied to a sample work of fiction. Here's the whole definition.
"'Open Game Content' means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is
In a message dated 9/5/2005 1:28:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
I don't know if "by default" is the appropriate word. I've only claimed that you must declare as OGC everything that you don't declare as PI.
What is your interpretation of:
"OGC... means any work cove
Subj: Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Date: 9/5/2005 9:08:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: HUDarklord
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 9/4/2005 5:19:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
license that says "the entire wor
On 5 Sep 2005 at 4:24, Thomas Kyle wrote:
> Well, the general consensus (at least of those closest to the OGL, and
> several others in this discussion) is that anything in the "third
> category" of non-OGC non-PI still _isn't_ usable under the OGL, which
> seems to be very similar to the concept o
In a message dated 9/4/2005 3:51:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< A magazine featuring many
articles is a "work".
>>
Just to prove my point further, Ryan -- here's a definition from Title 17:
A “collective work” is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or ency
In a message dated 9/4/2005 3:51:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
the things that we didn't want you to be able say like "This product is
compatible with Dungeons &Dragons(R)" on the cover and claim that it was
not a part of the "work" covered by the OGL.
>>
No. It woul
> From: "Tim Dugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > You have a "work", as defined by Ryan to be an
> entire product from
> > cover to cover. In this "work" you are required to
> declare what is
> > OGC, and to declare what is PI. However, there is
> nothing in the
> > license that says "the entire work
My position is that you cant "default" stuff to OGC
unless, perhaps, you can clearly show that it is or is
derived from OGC.
I dont buy the "OGC by default" argument. In my view,
nearly any "ogc by default" situation, what you really
have is a failure to use the license properly. A
license violati
> If this is the case, then there's no such thing as
> the "third type of
> content"
I'm a little slow, :) but I'm not sure that this is
necessarily true.
Clark
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundat
I agree that is probably going to be the
interpretation. Sort of ironic, of course, that you
have to go to standard copyright law to get that
definition. Maybe I'm the only one who finds that
funny :)
My question was more to find out what the prior
poster's view of "work" was that was underpinning
On 4 Sep 2005 at 17:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So you're saying that Ryan's interpretation is correct and that Lee's
> interpretation is wrong.
hehe... You know, I am not sure anymore
Seriously, I do think that the entire product is a "covered work", so I
guess that yes, I am agreeing w
From: "Tim Dugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You have a "work", as defined by Ryan to be an entire product from
cover to cover. In this "work" you are required to declare what is
OGC, and to declare what is PI. However, there is nothing in the
license that says "the entire work IS OGC unless it is de
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 4 Sep 2005 at 16:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I wonder if the fact
> that WotC hasn't taken any step
Does this mean that, in a work that had 10 chapters, where the
following definitions were in place: (abbreviated, obviously)
OGC: Chap 2, 3, 6, 7, 10
PI: Chap 1, 4, 9
Would the other chapters [ 5, 8 ] default to OGC (So all _but_ 1, 4, 9
were open, even though they weren't declared that way?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 Section #8 and also not
noted as
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
From: "Clark Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
the things th
In a message dated 9/4/2005 12:20:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
1) Open Content
2) Product Identity
3) Text that is within the covers of the book but is not within the
declared bounds of the covered work (also commonly referred to as the
"third type of content")
4) Text
Tim has focused on this part of the OGC definition:
"'Open Game Content' means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly
In a message dated 9/4/2005 12:20:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
that as something distinct from "a book." That is, he's of the school
that says "the covered work" isn't the equivalent of "the
product," because "the work" can mean an individual OGL-bound article
within a
In a message dated 9/3/2005 11:11:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
Or does "work" simply mean "that text to which the OGL
applies"?
>>
That's sort of tangential to the point of the thread, because I'm maintaining that no matter which of those it means, whatever is "the te
In a message dated 9/3/2005 11:08:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
that I listed above.
>>
That would not be, definitionally, part of the "work covered by the license".
<
if the whole work were considered OGL just by applying the license
to the work. To put it another w
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
So then what does "work" mean?
Does "work" and "covered work" = the entire product?
Or does "work" simply mean "that text to which the OGL
applies"?
Lets us a book that has 4 chapters. The chapters are
as follows:
Ch 1: Introduction (no OGC)
Ch 2: Classes and Skills (uses OGC)
Ch 3: Setting Info
On 3 Sep 2005 at 20:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The problem with adding the "plus leftover standard copyright law
> stuff" as part of the covered work, is that those things that are part
> of the covered work are not covered under standard copyright law. For
> instance, you are allowed to get a
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 3 Sep 2005 at 18:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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).
As Darklord pointed out e
In a message dated 9/3/2005 6:23:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
Of course this is true. Nobody is debating this. You have to do it. Nobody said it wasn't legally required of you to do it. You've missed the point of the post which is arguing that the phrase "OGC me
On 9/3/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Contractual construction requires that you give effect to this if
possible, even if it renders something else redundant. A poor
attempt at contractual construction is one where you have to delete a
portion of the contract for it to make sens
I've been discussing this "off list" with people so I've decided to post on list.
It involves the definition of OGC.
"OGC... means any work covered by the license,... but specifically excludes Product Identity."
Contractual construction requires that you give effect to this if possible, even if
83 matches
Mail list logo
