- Original Message -
From: "Jim Butler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[snip]
> I've been continually amazed at the amount of time that Clark (and others)
> devotes to answering questions on this list. As a *real* attorney, everyone
> should thank the gods for his patience and time here. And if you
In a message dated 2/24/2004 1:46:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
I think this is more than just an issue of the white out theory vs. the forbidden terms theory. What this really has to do is with the question of how responsible are you for abiding by the PI declaratio
David Shepheard wrote:
> I just hope that the next version of the OGL makes the issue
> a lot clearer or contains a link to a detailed online
> FAQ/tutorial either at the WOTC website or the open gaming
> foundation website that helps newbies, like me, pick the
> stuff up without having to go a
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Meerschaert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I don't think it's semantics at all. If PI is a sub-set of OGC then
> > it is not subject to distribution limitations. If it is completely
> > different from OGC then it is subject to rest
At 5:46 -0500 2/23/04, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 somet
At 3:52 -0500 2/23/04, Scott Broadbent wrote:
(*) Virtually none of the terms declared as product identity in the
last SRD releases have appeared anywhere within the SRD.
I don't know about the most-recent release, but the one before that
(the initial 3.5E-compatible release) didn't have a singl
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Product Identity does not mean "Everything that's not
OGC"
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:37:05 -0500
> "jdomsalla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> &g
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:37:05 -0500
"jdomsalla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Woah... This doesn't sound right to me...
>
> The only change to the OGL that the OGL permits (nay, requires) is
> Section 15. Separate licenses (such as the use of PI) are just
> that: separate. They can be included
EG/Fiery Dragon's Arcana Unearthed license, etc.) alongside the OGL, but
they don't change the OGL itself.
~Jimmy Domsalla
qtgg.icehex.net
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l
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
> PI isn't OGC, and neither is it a "sub-set" of OGC.
But it is "within" OGC. If PI is "outside" of OGC then
there was no need to PI it. So its like the eye of a
hurricaine. It is the still part that is not the
storm, but it is within the storm. If it was outside
the storm, it wouldnt be the eye a
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
Clark Peterson wrote:
Yes, PI is not OGC but there is (presumptively) no
need to declare as PI anything that is not mixed with
OGC. (Now, I have certainly PId stuff that isnt mixed
with OGC, but that is another story)
I think the reason this was done was to make
designations easy.
I think that
> Just want to get that straight - for the record ...
>
> Clark?
I think PI is meant to allow protection of content
that is "inextricably mixed in" with OGC. Thus, if the
content is not OGC, there is no need to apply PI
protection to it (though some do, for various reasons,
such as perhaps we are
At 4:09 + 2/23/04, Faustus von Goethe wrote:
Exactly! Which is why I'd like people to start making it perfectly
clear - PI is *not* a subset of OGC. Exactly the opposite. "PI is a
set of content that is specifically excluded from OGC." Doug said it
well;
Here's the problem:
The license says
Exactly! Which is why I'd like people to start making it perfectly clear -
PI is *not* a subset of OGC. Exactly the opposite. "PI is a set of content
that is specifically excluded from OGC." Doug said it well;
PI and OGC are contradictory states that content within a work can be
in. Any given
In a message dated 2/22/2004 7:59:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
PI and OGC and contradictory states that content within a work can be
in. Any given part of a work can EITHER be PI or OGC--never, ever
both. If it looks like there's an overlap, assume that it's PI.
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think it's semantics at all. If PI is a sub-set of OGC then
it is not subject to distribution limitations. If it is completely
different from OGC then it is subject to restrictions on distributions.
PI isn't OGC, and neither is it a "sub-set" of OGC.
PI and OG
In a message dated 2/22/2004 6:30:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
it should/could be the case. Perhaps it is semantics.
>>
I don't think it's semantics at all. If PI is a sub-set of OGC then it is not subject to distribution limitations. If it is completely different fr
the OGL says:
""Product Identity" means [_[stuff idebtified as PI by the author}_] ... ,
and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content"
Thanks.
Faust
From: Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTE
> Every so often, it's useful to point out that a work
> licensed under the Open
> Game License (from Wizards of the Coast -- hi,
> woodelf!) can have THREE
> types of content:
>
> * Material that is declared and released under the
> OGL as Open Game Content,
> and can be freely reused according t
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 2:01 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
>
> > There is a parallel here to the fact that there are spells in the
> > Player's Handbook called "Mord
22 matches
Mail list logo
