At 9:36 -0600 2/17/04, Gillispie, Bryan W. wrote:
I don't think PIing anything that the OGL allows you to PI is anymore
unethical than applying copyright or trademark protections to your work.
Whether something follows the spirit of the OGL or not is a
philosophical question and not a legal one and
At 05:38 AM 2/24/2004 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did see what Clark said then and, as I didn't *GET* the reasoning for
other people still
doing the same thing a long time after the R&R, I asked again. However,
I'm not going to
push the question any more as it just sounds like I'm bashing C
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 05:24:13 -
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still don't understand why people WANT to PI things that sound
> like general terms to me. The current possibilities I have are:
>
> 1) They are deliberately trying to cripple the OGC
> 2) They don't understand the OGL and think th
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 6:24
PM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
In a message dated 2/22/04 12:27:19 AM Eastern
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:<>Wrong, what
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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
r.
I think I may have to actually list the PIed stuff in a declaration rather than just
say
proper nouns, in case there could be ambiguity over the name of an organisation that
looks
like two words to people that don't know my content like I do.
David Shepheard
- Original Message
> But maybe I'm naïve: I just really, really haven't
> seen any signs of someone
> really wanting to "cripple" their OGC and prevent
> reuse.
Listen, if I wanted to cripple OGC I could. I would do
it in a bunch of ways, not just one way. So when
someone singles out a license or an overbroad PI, t
> 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. But this is
> important: CHECK WITH YOUR
> LAWYER FIRST! The license does not explicitly allow
> this exception; it's
> just a commonly accepted convention to avoid The
> Section
In a message dated 2/22/04 12:27:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
Wrong, what Clark is defending is his _clear_right_ under the license to do what he did. He doesn't want to be hazed for it. And you know, I think he's right. He's given a LOT of OGC and suggestions to o
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Martin L. Shoemaker
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 10:58 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
I know: bad form to reply to myself. But I forgot to mention the one
exception.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 1:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
>
> > Perhaps a middle way: put "All spell names fr
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
- Original Message -
From: "Spike Y Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:26:35 -0500
> "DarkTouch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Venca is the undead diety of greyhawk. Wizards releases a book that
> > is OGC with Venca listed as PI so I can't use him in my product.
>
- Original Message -
From: "Spike Y Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:30:33 EST
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In a message dated 2/20/2004 2:38:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > > For example looking through the spells I see one called
- Original Message -
From: "Spike Y Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:17:58 EST
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > If there are PI licenses, then you probably have to specifically
> > note which portions of the text are PI and belong to someone else.
> >
> > So, for ex
I agree entirely!
Personally, I think the OGL would have been put together MUCH better if it had
limited PI to proper nouns.
--- [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 pa
sage -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 10:51
PM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 2/20/2004 2:38:07 AM Eastern Standard
Time
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 2:30
PM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
In a message dated 2/20/2004 2:38:32 AM Eastern
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<>
Try:&qu
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated
2/20/2004 2:38:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<<* A 2014 OGL publication has PI licences from 10
products, five of which are out of print.* You want to reuse 1 spell,
t
> It sounds like people should start advertising their
> websites in their section 15s to get
> a bit of web traffic out of any OGC reuse.
I never have understood why people dont put more in
their section 15 that is helpful to them. Now, I dont
think "ads" or other stuff is really useful, but say
- Original Message -
From: "Martin L. Shoemaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Perhaps a middle way: put "All spell names from Relics & Rituals are used by
> license." in YOUR copyright in your section 15. At that point, he has no
> choice AND no problem: he has to reproduce your section 15 verba
- Original Message -
From: "jdomsalla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >If putting a line that says "all spells from Relics and Rituals are used by
> license" is a hurdle to someone, I don't know how that person gets through
> the day.
>
> It's not necessarily the statement that's the hurtle, but
y I
think you're on thin ground. But that's
your problem.
- Original Message -
From:
DarkTouch
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 4:12
PM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
Alright different example:
In the book, Mutants a
Action points to the Hero point section, or can I assume
that when I change one instance of Hero Points to Action points that I change
all instances?
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 3:43
PM
Subject:
ing Hand
and Bob's Magnificent Mansion.
- Original Message -
From: "Spike Y Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:26:35 -0500
> "DarkTo
In a message dated 2/20/2004 3:28:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
Does it matter if you know? What are you proposing doing?
I would strongly argue for the position that if the spell reference and the deity information were in the same volume, then whether or not yo
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:26:35 -0500
"DarkTouch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Venca is the undead diety of greyhawk. Wizards releases a book that
> is OGC with Venca listed as PI so I can't use him in my product.
> This same book also has a number of spells in it that are directly
> related to ou
riday, February 20, 2004 2:23
PM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
In a message dated 2/20/2004 10:23:35 AM
Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then I
can say: In this context for my product X=Jason and based on the [X][A]
spell description that's Jason'
In a message dated 2/20/2004 10:23:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then I can say: In this context for my product X=Jason and based on the [X][A] spell description that's Jason's Fire Missle.
Umm, I'd recommend using plain English instead of pseudo-code to describe the PI.
Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 9:46
AM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
In a message dated 2/20/2004 9:35:36 AM Eastern
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<"eclipse" anywhere else it appe
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:46:34 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The white-out theory would also require you to replace the word
> > "eclipse" anywhere else it appears in the text of your book.
>
> Actually, that's the "forbidden terms" theory.
Yes, Lee, you're correct again.
I'm sorry everyone
In a message dated 2/20/2004 9:35:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
"eclipse" anywhere else it appears in the text of your book, using
"occultation of the sun by the moon" when referring to the celestial
occurence, and "overshadowing of celebrity" when used in a career
sense
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:34:54 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > (And the suggestion that he buy a copy of both Book Y and "Lee's
> > Book of Superheroes" and then spend some hours line-by-line
> > cross-checking the two to see what material is common to the two
> > of them is ridiculous.)
>
> Ju
In a message dated 2/20/2004 9:31:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(And the suggestion that he buy a copy of both Book Y and "Lee's Book
of Superheroes" and then spend some hours line-by-line cross-checking
the two to see what material is common to the two of them is
ridiculo
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:30:33 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 2/20/2004 2:38:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > For example looking through the spells I see one called
> > Eclipse. Given that the spell causes an eclipse I am stumped
> > as to how you
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:17:58 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> If there are PI licenses, then you probably have to specifically
> note which portions of the text are PI and belong to someone else.
>
> So, for example, let's say I come up with a superhero called the
> "Great Guffaw". I PI his nam
In a message dated 2/20/2004 2:38:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
Try:
"Blotting Out the Sun"
"Darkness Falls Across the Land"
"Shadowy Hand of Hidden Sun"
"Creeping Shadow of the Stolen Sun"
Ars Magica proves time and time again that creative names for otherwise munda
In a message dated 2/20/2004 2:38:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<* A 2014 OGL publication has PI licences from 10 products, five of which are out of print.
* You want to reuse 1 spell, that you know is OGC but because of those 10 licences you
will need to track down all t
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You decided that it would be easier to declare all spell names PI and
> then give a free license to use those PI names, than it would have
> been to make a complete list of all the setting-specific words in some
> (but not all) of the spell
- Original Message -
From: "woodelf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How is a PIed name with reuse any better at this than a
> freely-reusable OGCed name? I agree that accurate attribution of
> reused content is great for the consumer *and* the original producer,
> but i don't see how the PIed name
--- Spike Y Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, Publisher X wants to use some spells from my book, and let's say
> he *doesn't* want to use the R&R spells: how is he going to know
> which ones are first-generation creations of mine, which are
> borrowings unemcumbered by a separate license (w
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Spike Y Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 8:53 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
>
>
> Say I publish a book with spells from three sources:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:27:42 -0800 (PST)
Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let's say, for instance, I'm drawing two spells from a source
> > that includes a few R&R spells and all the re-user has put is
> > "All spell names from Relics & Rituals are used by license",
> > how do *I* kno
CTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
> > Let's say, for instance, I'm drawing two spells from
> > a source that includes
> > a few R&R spells and all the re-user has put is "All
> > [spell names] from
> &g
makes me wonder sometimes... ;c)
At any rate, I do see your point. Advice taken.
~Jimmy Domsalla
qtgg.icehex.net
- Original Message -
From: "Clark Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI
> Let's say, for instance, I'm drawing two spells from
> a source that includes
> a few R&R spells and all the re-user has put is "All
> [spell names] from
> Relics & Rituals are used by license", how do *I*
> know if the two spells I'm
> using require me to use the Goodies License or not?
Any se
salla
qtgg.icehex.net
- Original Message -
From: "Clark Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:56 AM
Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
> > In a way, what you've done is shifted the burden of
> > typin
> In part because of the relative ease of using the
> WotC OGL, and the
> relatively minor costs associated with it. There
> were a fair number
> of people doing it when it was the only way to have
> compatibility
> with D&D.
True. And TSR was pretty aggressive against most of
them. I dont rea
woodelf-
One day I just want to hear you say, "you know, Clark
has thought alot about this and basically has found a
way around most problems and I have come to conclude
that he is actually genuinely interested in giving
away content that he didnt have to give away."
:)
Clark
--- woodelf <[EMAI
> In a way, what you've done is shifted the burden of
> typing all the PI
> terms into a clump off of your shoulders and onto
> the shoulders of the
> reuser.
> Now, if someone wants to use some spells from your
> book and he wants
> to mix them in with the spells from some other book,
> if he wan
At 17:17 -0800 2/17/04, Clark Peterson wrote:
> Anything else might be a copyright violation. It's
far from
clear-cut, where RPG mechanics are concerned. Not
that it's a good
idea--just that it's not clearly illegal.
Spoken like a true intellectual in an ivory tower.
Let's put it this way--it
At 14:51 -0800 2/17/04, Clark Peterson wrote:
> As for the generosity of free PI-reuse, and wanting
attribution
That isnt why I PI'd stuff in RR. I PI'd it because we
wanted to protect important setting content. If you
want to see how I handle attribution, when that is
importnat to me, see how we
> > 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 spells do.
>
> I agree with th
Clark Peterson wrote:
For example, I just did a product where my author used
5 or 6 rather obscure internet OGC sources. They had
bad section 15 designations. So, though I was forced
to use their section 15 by the license, I also added a
section called: "OGC in this Book" where I said "This
book u
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
> Anything else might be a copyright violation. It's
> far from
> clear-cut, where RPG mechanics are concerned. Not
> that it's a good
> idea--just that it's not clearly illegal.
Spoken like a true intellectual in an ivory tower.
Let's put it this way--its clearly illegal enough to
people who a
At 9:03 -0800 2/17/04, Fred wrote:
--- "Gillispie, Bryan W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If those who would reuse OGC don't like the way the
OGL is designed then don't use it.
Anyone who wants to reuse OGC MUST use the OGL.
Anything else would be a copyright violation.
Anything else might be a c
> But i don't accept "hey, it's legal" as blanket
> protection for doing
> anything--sometimes, what is legal is not moral.
I agree.
> As for the generosity of free PI-reuse, and wanting
> attribution
That isnt why I PI'd stuff in RR. I PI'd it because we
wanted to protect important setting co
> But i don't accept "hey, it's legal" as blanket
> protection for doing
> anything--sometimes, what is legal is not moral.
I agree.
> As for the generosity of free PI-reuse, and wanting
> attribution
That isnt why I PI'd stuff in RR. I PI'd it because we
wanted to protect important setting co
I guess I shouldnt get so mad. It is the same
"everything should be open and everyone who doesnt
agree is evil and is violating the license" nonsense
that crops up from time to time.
What particularly offends me are the people who are so
quick to ascribe to me some evil intent who 1. dont
know me
> Seems to me that the nose of the original creator
> OUGHT to be
> tweaked. He clearly does not want to abide by the
> terms of
> the OGL which is to allow things to be reused.
I didnt catch who wrote this.
I'm here. Tweak away.
But my guess is you dont know what the hell you are
talking ab
> 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 spells do.
I agree with that problem. That m
> So I chose option 2. PI all the names and provide a blanket
> license for all spell names. That is easier and simpler for everyone.
>
> I actually went out of my way to make reuse EASIER for everyone.
>
>
> It pisses me off to hear whiny criticism of something I went
> out of my way to do ni
> > Try Shade Sword or Umbral Weapon or Shadow Sword.
>
> Seems to me that the nose of the original creator OUGHT to be
> tweaked. He clearly does not want to abide by the terms of
> the OGL which is to allow things to be reused.
I disagree.
I think Clark has done a wonderful job in both cont
Having used Clark's Product Identity under that same free license in the
past (as well as the nearly identical free 'goodies' license from AEG in
the rokugan books), I have to agree that this system is great in that it
allows you to use the PI with permission in specific fashions, OR just
change th
> I wish more people would come to that conclusion.
Pay attention. That is essentially what we did. But
the license is a blanket license. To have done a spell
specific license I would have had to have listed every
spell that had protected content and given a license
for each one. What if I screwed
--- Doug Meerschaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clark Peterson wrote:
>
> >As for the suggestion that we could have made it all
> >OGC,
> >
> The only suggestion worthwhile is that you PI what's important--the
> names of your gods et al--and OGC everything else. Won't a claim of
> "Ildur" a
Yes, that is essentially what we did. We then did not
designate the spell names as open content (remember,
this is way back when PI was a new concept, I would do
it slightly differently today).
But I did several different drafts of several ways to
license the content and the easiest and clearest
Clark Peterson wrote:
As for the suggestion that we could have made it all
OGC,
The only suggestion worthwhile is that you PI what's important--the
names of your gods et al--and OGC everything else. Won't a claim of
"Ildur" as PI also keep the name out of "Ildur's Smite" or "Bane of Ildur"?
Lets not forget, in Relics & Rituals we had some
serious PI we were concerned about protecting, such as
the specific names of the gods and setting info that
are in many of the spell names.
I wanted a nice, simple, clear way to allow people to
use the content, but I still had a clear reason to PI
s
--- Spike Y Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:58:35 -0800 (PST)
> Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Crippling OGC causes the re-user to change the name. This makes it
> > impossible for people reading the re-use to have a lot harder
> > time tracing the OGL ba
In a message dated 2/17/2004 1:37:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
Bryan Gillispie
Technology Services
(573) 875-7328
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't think credit is undermined if you are forced to change the
name. You still get your entry in section 15. In 100% OGC stuff that is
the only credit you get (barring any other agreement) and your section
15 entry could
In a message dated 2/17/2004 1:37:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>How is a PIed name with reuse any better at this than a
>freely-reusable OGCed name? I agree that accurate attribution of
>reused content is great for the consumer *and* the original producer,
>but i don't
At 9:24 -0500 2/17/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) added control over their IP
b) additional recognition beyond Section 15
c) sometimes are looking to allow the purchaser of a volume using
their OGC to easily pick out which creatures or spells come from
which book (something which is not normally
At 8:22 -0600 2/17/04, Gillispie, Bryan W. wrote:
Actually he isn't a jerk and isn't stopping you from using his open
content. What the author is doing is 100% on the up and up and is
ALLOWED by the OGL. Furthermore, the author has included a license to
use his PI for FREE! He just wants to ensure
In a message dated 2/17/2004 12:46:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, then call it "crippling the OGC but providing an optional
wheelchair to help with the PI".
Again, I think that's even overstating it. Take the Pocket Grimoire series. The spell names make up only a
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:38:19 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> People providing PI licenses for their spell name collections are
> hardly "crippling" the OGC. Particularly some of the PI licenses
> I've seen have been VERY easy to use, and free to boot.
>
> I think calling PI licenses like those
In a message dated 2/17/2004 11:59:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
for people reading the re-use to have a lot harder time tracing the OGL back
to its original source, effectively severing it from it's origination... which
is exactly the opposite of the intention of the cr
In a message dated 2/17/2004 11:53:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>But nonunique spell names (i.e., "fire bolt") aren't necessarily
>protected by a PI declaration ANYWAY (check your lawyer, don't trust
Again, see my point re: recipe collections. Except for their sideli
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:58:35 -0800 (PST)
Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Crippling OGC causes the re-user to change the name. This makes it
> impossible for people reading the re-use to have a lot harder
> time tracing the OGL back to its original source, effectively
> severing it from it
--- "Gillispie, Bryan W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If those who would reuse OGC don't like the way the
> OGL is designed then don't use it.
Anyone who wants to reuse OGC MUST use the OGL.
Anything else would be a copyright violation.
=
*
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 2/17/2004 10:01:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > < > include proper names to be OGC. Big difference.
> > >>
>
> That's not the way the OGL works. Take a recipe. One may not be
> copyrightable, but a collection o
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 2/17/2004 10:10:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Crippled OGC does the exact OPPOSITE of what it's intended to do.
> > >>
>
> Since the OGL explicitly allows people to PI spell names, and since spell
> name collectio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the OGL explicitly allows people to PI spell names, and since
spell name collections are copyrightable and subject to being PI'd,
I'd say PI'ing spell name collections is _explicitly_ allowable and
_intended_ under the language of the OGL.
Spell name collections?
In a message dated 2/17/2004 10:10:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
No, that's exactly what you said, when you claimed that the original author was "not abiding by the terms of the OGL".
<<
Crippled OGC does the exact OPPOSITE of what it's intended to do.
>>
Since the O
In a message dated 2/17/2004 10:01:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
include proper names to be OGC. Big difference.
>>
That's not the way the OGL works. Take a recipe. One may not be copyrightable, but a collection of them _is_. The collection is _not_ public domain by
. If those who would reuse OGC don't like the way the
OGL is designed then don't use it.
Bryan
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ogf-l-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fred
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 9:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Spike Y Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 07:00:32 -0800 (PST)
> Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The publisher is trying to create a situation where he can
> > impose licensing restrictions (however light) on something that, by
> > the spirit of the OGL, ought no
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 07:00:32 -0800 (PST)
Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The publisher is trying to create a situation where he can
> impose licensing restrictions (however light) on something that, by
> the spirit of the OGL, ought not have licensing restrictions.
Ah, but "the spirit of the
--- "Gillispie, Bryan W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually he isn't a jerk and isn't stopping you from using his open
> content. What the author is doing is 100% on the up and up and is
> ALLOWED by the OGL. Furthermore, the author has included a license to
> use his PI for FREE! He just want
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 2/17/2004 8:45:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > < > He
> > clearly does not want to abide by the terms of the OGL which is to allow
> > things to be reused.
> > >>
>
> Hold on just a moment. Hold on. The fact that
In a message dated 2/17/2004 9:25:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People like Clark are looking for:
BTW -- as a clarification, I don't know if Clark's products are involved here. I used his products as an example of things which have generous licenses for PI usage.
Lee
In a message dated 2/17/2004 8:45:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
clearly does not want to abide by the terms of the OGL which is to allow
things to be reused.
>>
Hold on just a moment. Hold on. The fact that somebody has PI _does_not_ mean that said individual isn't "
Actually he isn't a jerk and isn't stopping you from using his open
content. What the author is doing is 100% on the up and up and is
ALLOWED by the OGL. Furthermore, the author has included a license to
use his PI for FREE! He just wants to ensure that he gets credit for his
creation, is that wron
--- Spike Y Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:35:30 -0800
> "Michael Cortez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, lets say I wanted to create a replacement name that would be
> > released as OGC, what methods could I use?
> > Taking it a step farther, I tried to think up a
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:35:30 -0800
"Michael Cortez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A spell that has been submitted to the D20 Exchange comes from a
> book that declares all it's spell names as PI, and then provides
> a license to use that spell name.
>
> The spell has the name: Shadow Weapon
>
>
Call it "Weapon of Shadow" and add your own name to the Section 15.
From: "Michael Cortez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:35:30 -0800
I thought I'd ask the
> In this case, since the name was "developed"
> independent of knowing the
> original name, can I release it as OGC?
No, that isnt "independent development."
> Would these be
> considered violating the PI statement? They are
> * Weapon of Shadow
Probably not. That is actually a new name.
>
Personally, I'd save myself all the fuss, call it "umbral weapon," and
be done with it.
John W. Mangrum
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
