Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yair" data-source="post: 4313138" data-attributes="member: 10913">I am not sure if that is possible under the OGL. On the surface, you may simply claim not to be distributing any original OGC. However, you are NOT simply copying someone's OGC. The work involves editing, abridgment, changing words, and so on. It falls under Derivative Material (1b) of the license, and the work is to some extent new. I therefore think it's prudent to add your name to the copyright list, less you be in violation of the bolded part. Better safe than sorry.I didn't remember the &quot;original&quot; part when answering, though. That does leave a way out to use the license without updating the list, which I didn't remember existed.&quot;work&quot; is referred to in Section 8, which essentially requires all OGC to be part of a well-defined &quot;work&quot; for its proper designation; in this case the &quot;work&quot; is probably the webstite, IMO, but arguably the entry. What Grandwiki has copyrights to is more questionable, but surely any words that are used to replace or abridge original OGC, changes in its structure, and so on. If I change your PI &quot;Emerald Empire Guard&quot; to &quot;Imperial Guard&quot;, who does the &quot;Imperial&quot; there belong to? I'm releasing it as OGC, after all. If I change your sentence from &quot;Add this to any character&quot; to &quot;Affiliated Crazons Option: Under this option, you add to any character the ability to...&quot; for editing reasons (perhaps making a single entry instead of one of a series, for better inclusion in a wiki structure) - anyone copying that without license would be violating someone's copyrights, but whose? To be on the safe side, it's just better for everone concerned to add the wiki's/editor's name to the copyrights list. You are neglecting the various editing changes involved. Regardless, the addition of the name to the list is IMHO prudent at the least.Yeah, that's reasonable.Me too. Forgotten all about the &quot;original&quot; up there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yair, post: 4313138, member: 10913"] I am not sure if that is possible under the OGL. On the surface, you may simply claim not to be distributing any [i]original[/i] OGC. However, you are NOT simply copying someone's OGC. The work involves editing, abridgment, changing words, and so on. It falls under Derivative Material (1b) of the license, and the work is to some extent new. I therefore think it's prudent to add your name to the copyright list, less you be in violation of the bolded part. Better safe than sorry. I didn't remember the "original" part when answering, though. That does leave a way out to use the license without updating the list, which I didn't remember existed. "work" is referred to in Section 8, which essentially requires all OGC to be part of a well-defined "work" for its proper designation; in this case the "work" is probably the webstite, IMO, but arguably the entry. What Grandwiki has copyrights to is more questionable, but surely any words that are used to replace or abridge original OGC, changes in its structure, and so on. If I change your PI "Emerald Empire Guard" to "Imperial Guard", who does the "Imperial" there belong to? I'm releasing it as OGC, after all. If I change your sentence from "Add this to any character" to "Affiliated Crazons Option: Under this option, you add to any character the ability to..." for editing reasons (perhaps making a single entry instead of one of a series, for better inclusion in a wiki structure) - anyone copying that without license would be violating [i]someone's[/i] copyrights, but whose? To be on the safe side, it's just better for everone concerned to add the wiki's/editor's name to the copyrights list. You are neglecting the various editing changes involved. Regardless, the addition of the name to the list is IMHO prudent at the least. Yeah, that's reasonable. Me too. Forgotten all about the "original" up there. [/QUOTE]

Verification