From: "David Shepheard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Tim Dugger"
On 12 Aug 2005 at 10:09, Spike Y Jones wrote:
Oops I must be going mad. That was a year ago! Feel free to ignore my reply.
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http:
From: "Tim Dugger"
On 12 Aug 2005 at 10:09, Spike Y Jones wrote:
> Slaine, Warp Spasm, Tir Nan Og, Fomorian, Red Branch, Fir Bolg,
> Enech*, Cromlech.
Here is an idea - for these terms, since they are public domain,
include a statement of such.
Example:
Public Domain terms: From Celtic Mytho
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/12/2005 11:03:33 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 12 Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote:
> I don't recall bibliographies being specifically banned by the OGL.
But other people's trademarks and such are, and
In a message dated 8/15/2005 6:54:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Define "Ownership".
* Specifically allow attribution of OGC to specific sources.
Oh, there are a helluva lot more reasons than that. They've been discussed ad nauseum. The section with ownership has bad
Matthew Hector wrote:
Since the license already defines other terms, it would certainly be useful
to have "owenership" defined for purpses of the OGL in a later version.
So, that's a grand total of two good ideas for a revision of the OGL.
* Define "Ownership".
* Specifically allow attribu
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
Charles Greathouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Problem is, there is no good way to do a designation
> > like that. It is either PI or it isnt. I guess a
> > publisher could say, "...and the name Arthur, but only
> > to the extent that name reflects an NP
reting the grey areas. I must be a
traitor to the profession. :)
Matt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Spike Y
Jones
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 4:11 PM
To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On Mon, 1
I'm reminded of "d20 (when used as a trademark)" from the SRD.
Charles Greathouse
--- Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that it is possible to PI a name in
> > conjunction with the character
> > that name represents, sure. I just don't think the
> > name in and of itself is
>
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:30:43 -0500
"Matthew Hector" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As far as the IP laws themselves are concerned, it would seem a lot
> of them are superseded by the OGL.
Yes, indeed. The OGL is a license that allows you to make use of some
copyrighted material that you might n
> But as you correctly state, Mongoose really has no
> ownership of words like "Fir Bolg" (or firbolg),
> "Fomorian," or even "enech," or "cromlech," the last
> two being the Gaelic word for regular English terms
> (it'd be like me PI-ing the Spanish version of those
> words). Their interpretation
> I think that it is possible to PI a name in
> conjunction with the character
> that name represents, sure. I just don't think the
> name in and of itself is
> the only thing that merits protection.
Problem is, there is no good way to do a designation
like that. It is either PI or it isnt. I
> It seems pretty common sense to me that if they both> match the public domain inspired concept that there is> no problem. But it seems to me that if they both match the public domain-inspired concept then Mongoose shouldn't have claimed "firbolg" as PI since they have no ownership grounds.
Thus
Spike Y Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Clark Peterson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> But since Mongoose
>>> itself derived those elements in part from the public domain
>>> sources, how is one to determine whether or not Daniel's
>>> interpretation of, say, Firbolgs is
s. . ."
As far as the IP laws themselves are concerned, it would seem a lot of them
are superseded by the OGL.
Matt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Spike Y
Jones
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 8:12 AM
To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundatio
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But since Mongoose
> > itself derived those elements in part from the
> > public domain sources,
> > how is one to determine whether or not Daniel's
> > interpretation of,
> > say, Firbolgs is safely public doma
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:04:53 -0400
Brett Sanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:09:02AM -0400, Spike Y Jones wrote:
> > I still say the easiest course is likely to be to get in touch
> > with Mongoose and see what can be worked out.
>
> It certainly would be the easiest co
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:09:02AM -0400, Spike Y Jones wrote:
> I still say the easiest course is likely to be to get in touch with
> Mongoose and see what can be worked out.
It certainly would be the easiest course in this case. But:
1) Having to ask permission defeats the purpose of a general
> But since Mongoose
> itself derived those elements in part from the
> public domain sources,
> how is one to determine whether or not Daniel's
> interpretation of,
> say, Firbolgs is safely public domain or breachedly
> Mongoose-derived?
It seems pretty common sense to me that if they both
match
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:25:08 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Read my most recent post on the 3 ways you can claim some copyright
> over a name.
Your follow-up post arrived just after I sent mine out; oh well.
> You CAN PI a name as it applies to a very specific character, but
> then your PI p
In a message dated 8/15/2005 9:16:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
most public domain words can't be PIed (a position I agree with), but
you disagree about the possibility of PIing a name derivable from a
public domain source as it applies to a particular character? (That
i
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:50:15 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> My literal reading of the PI definition says to declare PI it must
> be ownable and you must own it. Meaning you can't declare public
> domain stuff per se.
So you would agree with some of the posters of the last few days that
most
Guys, maybe somebody cares to cite some IP law on this, but I thought that under IP law you can own a name under only three circumstances:
a) it is a trademark of yours
b) you can own a name in specific connection with a very distinct character concept, but that ownership is then severed when the
In a message dated 8/14/2005 10:23:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
to indicate this is the case.>>
My literal reading of the PI definition says to declare PI it must be ownable and you must own it. Meaning you can't declare public domain stuff per se.
<
disallow claim
ECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clark
Peterson
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 11:18 PM
To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
> The short version: I think claiming public domain
> materials as PI is (or
> should be) bunk.
I dont think y
> The short version: I think claiming public domain
> materials as PI is (or
> should be) bunk.
I dont think you are really getting tbe point and
might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so
to speak. There are times when you create an NPC and
that NPC has a name that may derive from
#x27;t
identical to your source.
Matthew Hector, Esq.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ryan S.
Dancey
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 3:24 PM
To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
From: "Spike Y Jones" &
From: "Spike Y Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Unfortunately, one of the two main readings of the PI terms of the
OGL is that you, by borrowing *any* OGC from some other publisher,
agree not to use *any* terms that he claims as PI, whether you could
source those from elsewhere or not.
Neither, I no
I absolutely agree with this interpretation. They can
only have an ownership interest in their incarnation
of that created fictional person who happens to have a
name that comes from the public domain. Thus all their
PI designation can mean is their incarnation.
Clark
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I dont know abotu that. I have PI'd a name (frankly, I
cant remember which one) that clearly had a public
domain origin because I meant that name as it applied
to my particular NPC.
Clark
> I agree with you that reasonable people would come
> to the conclusion
> that the OGL doesn't allow you t
Spike, by my reading of the OGL, Product Identity must be "clearly identified as Product identity by THE OWNER of the Product Identity".
Mongoose can't claim ownership over a public domain concept (at least not as the term "ownership" would be applied to intellectual property). They could well c
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Clark Peterson wrote:
> I'd be surprised if Mongoose even felt you needed to
> ask permission to use words that are obviously in the
> public domain (and obviously I am only talking about
> words and names that are actually in the public
> domain).
I agree with you that reaso
GRIM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wouldnt be 100% about a couple of those terms.
Id check with Rebellion Software (Owners of 2000AD from which Slaine derives) as well or first. Since they licensed out the IP and have a hell of a lot more legal clout than any RPG company youll need to
I'd be surprised if Mongoose even felt you needed to
ask permission to use words that are obviously in the
public domain (and obviously I am only talking about
words and names that are actually in the public
domain).
Matt? Are you still on this list?
Clark
--- Brett Sanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
It's my opinion, it is Ryan's opinion, and it is the
only reading of the license that makes any reasonable
sense.
Obviously, like everything else with the OGL, there is
no official pronouncement on anything :)
Clark
--- Spike Y Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:04:42 -0
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 10:09:15AM -0400, Spike Y Jones wrote:
> Possibly the easiest thing to do: Get in touch with Mongoose and get
> permission to use the terms they claim as PI (which would mean
> reproducing their PI claim for the next person down the chain to deal
> with).
That does, however
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They absolutely cannot do that (prevent you from using
> public domain names). They can PI the name, but it is
> only as to that NPC or person from their product.
> You have every right to use those names you wan
They absolutely cannot do that (prevent you from using
public domain names). They can PI the name, but it is
only as to that NPC or person from their product.
You have every right to use those names you want to
use, presuming they have a public domain origin.
Mongoose, or any other publisher, ca
I am with Ryan. I say use them. No need to contact
Mongoose. Heck, I recognize those names as public just
as much as Arthur or Olympus or Zeus.
Now I could make a specific NPC named Zeus and PI that
name, but it would only be as it relates to that
particular incarnation.
Clark
--- "Ryan S. Dan
I agree with you 100%. The "Slaine" name they are
PIing is their version. They cant PI a name and take
that name for all time and in all incarnations.
Clark
--- Highmoon Media Productions
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am writing a Celtic themed product, and using OGC
> material from Mongoose
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
Highmoon Media Productions <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Sturrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, my reading of the license allows a company to do what
>> Mongoose (or Rebellion, the Slaine IP owners) seem to have done
>> here -- to prevent other
Ian Sturrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello, Ian. Great job with the game. Love it!
Yeah, my reading of the license allows a company to do what Mongoose (or Rebellion, the Slaine IP owners) seem to have done here -- to prevent other companies from using a load of essentially public domain terms
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:07:12 -0500
"Tim Dugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote:
>
> > > This way you are officially declaring the source of your terms,
> > > which also indicates that you are NOT using anybody else's PI.
> >
> > Depending on which readi
> -Original Message-
> Spike Y Jones
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:24:39 -0500
> "Tim Dugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here is an idea - for these terms, since they are public domain,
> > include a statement of such.
> >
> > Example:
> > Public Domain terms: From Celtic Mythology,
In a message dated 8/12/2005 11:03:33 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 12
Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote:> I don't recall
bibliographies being specifically banned by the OGL.But other people's
trademarks and such are, and that can very definitely includ
On 12 Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote:
> > Here is an idea - for these terms, since they are public domain,
> > include a statement of such.
> >
> > Example:
> > Public Domain terms: From Celtic Mythology, the following terms were
> > derived,
> >
> > This way you are officially declari
On 12 Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote:
> I don't recall bibliographies being specifically banned by the OGL.
But other people's trademarks and such are, and that can very
definitely include book titles, and company names.
TANSTAAFL
Rasyr (Tim Dugger)
System Editor
Iron Crown Enterprise
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:24:39 -0500
"Tim Dugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Slaine, Warp Spasm, Tir Nan Og, Fomorian, Red Branch, Fir Bolg,
> > > Enech*, Cromlech.
>
> Here is an idea - for these terms, since they are public domain,
> include a statement of such.
>
> Example:
> Public Dom
On 12 Aug 2005 at 10:09, Spike Y Jones wrote:
> > Slaine, Warp Spasm, Tir Nan Og, Fomorian, Red Branch, Fir Bolg,
> > Enech*, Cromlech.
Here is an idea - for these terms, since they are public domain,
include a statement of such.
Example:
Public Domain terms: From Celtic Mythology, the followi
y
Sent: 12 August 2005 17:39
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI
declarations
> Personally I have a
mind to simply ignore the PI declaration as it applies to these terms, which
> have obviously
been in use before the Slaine comic or
> Personally I have a mind to simply ignore the PI declaration as it
applies to these terms, which
> have obviously been in use before the Slaine comic or the game,
but I wanted to ask for thoughts
> on the matter.
If you are confident that the terms themselves are
in the public domain, and
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:45:02AM -0400, Tavis Allison wrote:
> Given that you've provided alternate spellings or valid synonyms for
> most of the PI terms, I don't see what you would lose by choosing those
> variants and staying away from the ones they've claimed. Even though
> their claims ar
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 06:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
Highmoon Media Productions <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am writing a Celtic themed product, and using OGC material from
> Mongoose's Slaine RPG. The PI declaration lists a number of terms
> they claim as PI, and I have a problem with it. While some of
Highmoon Media Productions wrote:
Personally I have a mind to simply ignore the PI declaration as it
applies to these terms, which have obviously been in use before the
Slaine comic or the game, but I wanted to ask for thoughts on the matter.
Given that you've provided alternate spellings or
- Original Message -
From: "Spike Y Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:43:09 EST
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If you license artwork using a non-OGL license, and you publish it
> > in an OGL'd work should you:
> >
> > a) declare it as the licensor's PI (on the grounds
In a message dated 2/24/2004 10:05:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
declaration within the publisher of the work's own OGC/PI
declarations; they couldn't merely declare it outside of the scope of
the OGL, since they don't believe there is such a thing
>>
Part of my questio
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:43:09 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you license artwork using a non-OGL license, and you publish it
> in an OGL'd work should you:
>
> a) declare it as the licensor's PI (on the grounds that the owner
> has given you the implied authority to note that their product is
>
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you license artwork using a non-OGL license, and you publish it in an
> OGL'd work should you:
>
> a) declare it as the licensor's PI (on the grounds that the owner has given
> you the implied authority to note that their product is protected)
>
> b) note that
57 matches
Mail list logo
