From: Doug Meerschaert
>
> Reginald Cablayan wrote:
> >
> > And what is your revision wishlist for the Open Gaming License?
>
> 1: Expressly clarify if PI is "no permission given" or "agree
> not to use."
Of the two, I'd lean toward "agree not to use" which would give publisher a
measure of co
Reginald Cablayan wrote:
And what is your revision wishlist for the Open Gaming License?
1: Expressly clarify if PI is "no permission given" or "agree not to use."
2: Expressly allow attribution of unaltered content when done so not in
advertising. (i.e., "Ritual item rules from Relics & Ritu
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I just wish we could get WotC to adopt a new revision of
> the license. I don't know if people would switch to it
> (since it would be largely voluntary), but a guy can
> keep on hoping.
And what is your revision wishlist for the Open Gaming License?
___
In a message dated 4/16/2004 11:17:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
Publisher B decides neither to release as Open Content nor to declare
PI, and it that means that it's then outside the Covered Work and so
normal copyright law would hold sway, sure I could mention the book
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:06:54 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The third type of content is OUTSIDE the covered work, not INSIDE
>> the covered work. Can a book contain 3 types of stuff: plain
>> copyrighted, OGC, and PI? Sure. Will that book be "the covered
>> work"? No. Some portion of
In a message dated 4/15/2004 12:01:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
I live my life in confusion, no worries, David.
<<
Don't the people that talk about "closed content" define it as:
"That part of the work in an OGLed document that isn't OGC or PI. And is therefore not
In a message dated 4/15/2004 12:01:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
If you own the stuff you can PI it. You can then sublicense it anyway you want.
However, you'll likely find that it's difficult to right an airtight anti-crippling definition.
It's possible. You'd h
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 3:05
AM
The third type of content is OUTSIDE the covered work, not INSIDE the
covered work. Can a book contain 3 types of stuff: plain copyrighted,
OGC, and PI? Sure. Will that bo
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 1:00
PM
So, woodelf can release a piece of art as 100% PI under the
OGL. Then he can sublicense it to me. Then I can use it without
trying to come up with some complex definition of what
In a message dated 4/14/2004 12:07:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
Of course, but that doesn't mean that they aren't bound by the terms of the OGL if they use it in a work. They can't change the rules.
They can grant rights in some circumstances because they can licens
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 3:05
AM
And, while I didn't check the front cover of Dragon, I kept
seeing M&M ads and other stuff that were OGL covered while the magazine
itself didn't seem to be OGL covered.
At 7:43 -0700 4/12/04, Fred wrote:
Mechanics are not listed in the long list of things that you can
declare as PI.
Go dig around in the list archives. Look for a [series of] post[s]
from Alec on the topic of what can and cannot be PI. Alec has a law
degree and, IIRC, specializes in IP law. He c
In a message dated 4/12/2004 10:43:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mechanics are not listed in the long list of things that you can declare as PI.
Right, rules are merely a subset of other broader categories. Concepts, language, diagrams, descriptions of spells & special a
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The license clearly states that mechanics in the covered work (since the
> license, barring a couple of clauses about advertisement) are _not_ OGC
> where they
> are PI. One would also have to construe that mechanics in works that aren't
>
> covered by the scope
In a message dated 4/12/2004 1:24:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
two parts of clause 1(d) by asserting that the license doesn't apply
to "regular" closed content), you're where Alec ended up a year or
two ago: the license only applies to OGC, and thus can only apply to
In a message dated 4/11/2004 11:31:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OGC is defined as game mechanics plus that portion of the covered work that
isn't PI.
No. OGC is defined as the game mechanics MINUS any PI inherent in them. It says so right in the license.
And if you ma
At 18:37 -0700 4/11/04, Michael Cortez wrote:
This definition by Lee, I think is fairly complete in defining that such a
thing exists. The closed content is simply the stuff that is not part of
the "defined/covered work" -- which may or may not be different from what
the US Copyright office usual
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> OGC is defined as the work covered by the license except that parts declared
> as PI. That's the definition of OGC. If I have no PI, then the work
> covered
> by the license, my text in section 2, must be 100% OGC. Then I have to mark
> 100% of it as OGC.
No, it
In a message dated 4/11/2004 9:37:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
thing exists. The closed content is simply the stuff that is not part of
the "defined/covered work" -- which may or may not be different from what
the US Copyright office usually defines as a "Work."
>>
I
>> "This collection of essays constitutes a compilation.
>> While the compilation as a whole is not covered by the
>> OGL, the text of section 2 constitutes a work which is
>> covered by the OGL. The art in section 2 constitutes
>> a separate work which is not covered by the OGL."
>> In th
In a message dated 4/11/2004 11:32:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
statement from WotC in an FAQ or in a list debate where they state
that they interpret the OGL to not include the possibility of closed
content?
>>
Can you point me to a single line of the license itself
At 11:31 -0400 4/11/04, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This topic has been debated on this list (among others) for years
now. Hundreds of books have been published using the OGL. Is there
even one publisher (the people who have their money on the line,
and who hopefully have consulted with actual lawy
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
