Questions about the new SRD [summon Orcus!]

[Mark]

I quoted the current available download, and I also had the original. I'm finding it interesting that the change came after I suggested it might have been their intention to be using "d20" in their PI section as it refers to a trademark after I mentioned it in this thread. I hope they realize that I am not a lawyer.

 

[seasong]

It's more likely, I think, that they saw discussion on the matter, sent an e-mail to one of their lawyers, and the lawyers sent back something along the lines of "Doh!"

-seasong

 

[Mark]

It's more likely, I think, that they saw discussion on the matter, sent an e-mail to one of their lawyers, and the lawyers sent back something along the lines of "Doh!"

No doubt.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

[edit]

Nevermind. It's my responsibility to have the thicker skin.

Originally posted by seasong
It's more likely, I think, that they saw discussion on the matter, sent an e-mail to one of their lawyers, and the lawyers sent back something along the lines of "Doh!"

Actually, if memory serves me from the discussion on the OGL- lists, it seems that the line was originally inserted, and eventually corrected, by Andy Smith (keeper of the SRD), due to concerns raised on the list itself. In the absence of supporting evidence, it is only a fear of the alternative that leads me to believe that their legal was involved at all in this entire matter.


Wulf

 

[Eridanis]

Mark & Wulf -

(I can't believe I'm writing this...)

Seperate corners, guys. Take a breather.

 

[dcollins]

Their designation, even the revised one, seems flawed to me. The purpose of the PI declaration is to designate those portions of your own Open Content that are Product Identity. Frankly, I don't know that "d20, used as a trademark" exists anywhere within the 3.5 SRD (I certainly can't find it used in that fashion in the 3.0 SRD)...

Actually, to be clear, Wulf, I have to technically disagree here. None of the 45 or so pieces of PI asserted appear in the body of the revised SRD Legal document. (With the single exception of "d20").

In fact, I'm additionally wondering if it was incorrect of them to add a PI assertion section in the SRD Legal document. The 3.0 SRD Legal had no such paragraph. The document asserts that the whole document is OGC, and yet contains a subsection claiming pieces of PI which are not otherwise in the SRD. That seems to be another contradiction brought about by careless editing (although not quite so blatant as the "d20" one).

And smetzger, I hope you noted my prior post that WOTC's own FAQ says that once something is released as OGC, it cannot later be claimed as PI.


This change still feels a bit squishy, frankly -- (a) "d20" doesn't exist at the current time as a trademark, unlike everything else asserted as PI; (b) it's not clear that a distinction of "sometimes trademark/ sometimes not" can be made in the same body of work for a single word; and (c) even if it removes a clear-cut contradiction, it's now at best a wierd redundancy, since any trademark is already unusable per Section 7.

I'm forced to categorize this whole event as "WOTC adding uncertainty to the market".

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Actually, to be clear, Wulf, I have to technically disagree here. None of the 45 or so pieces of PI asserted appear in the body of the revised SRD Legal document. (With the single exception of "d20").

I think you're agreeing, actually. I don't believe you can claim Product Identity that doesn't even exist in the document you are releasing as OGC. I only pulled out "d20" cause it's the only one I care about.

Wulf

 

[dcollins]

I certainly agree with you that the use seems flawed. The hair I was trying to split was the idea that "The purpose of the PI declaration is to designate those portions of your own Open Content that are Product Identity.", which I'm not so sure about.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I certainly agree with you that the use seems flawed. The hair I was trying to split was the idea that "The purpose of the PI declaration is to designate those portions of your own Open Content that are Product Identity.", which I'm not so sure about.

True, that was careless of me. I should say, it is to designate those portions of a work containing Open Content which are Product Identity.

Either way, I don't know that they can do it as they've done it.

 

[smetzger]

And smetzger, I hope you noted my prior post that WOTC's own FAQ says that once something is released as OGC, it cannot later be claimed as PI.

Interesting... However, the FAQ is _not_ legally binding.

There are two different ways to interpret PI.

One is: If you declare something as PI no-one can ever use that PI, if they reference your work.

Two is: If you declare something as PI, but that something is already in the public domain(or previously OGC in another work); then your PI is essentially useless. Because someone can just reference the public domain or the previouse OGC.

After reading discussions on the OGL list I am convinced that both interpretations have merit and that the OGL doesn't define PI well enough.