Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 1034907" data-attributes="member: 5">Isn't that, in essence, what they have done?  They've included, in the legal rtf a list of (claimed) PI'd terms.  Are the terms included in a proper fashion and do they justify the claim by their inclusion?  I think so (though I am not a lawyer) and I also think there is general support for this idea in almost all products that have come to be dsitributed under the OGL.By way of support, the OGL attached to anyone's work and included with an OGL'd work (whether the product includes/follows the d20 System License or not) is, itself, OGC.  It's OGC by virtue of its inclusion in the SRD and gets used as OGC in every single product released under the OGL.  It includes section 15 and has the following statements from elsewhere in the OGL which govern the use of it -This functions as as a failsafe (#11) for companies that do not PI their company name (or other information they may include in their section 15).As an aside, and technically speaking, the OGL in a product that also uses the d20 System License which requires 5% of a product be OGC may include the sum of the OGL as part of the 5% under the current terms of the d20 System License Guide.  If the product is less than 18,980 words long, the 949 words of the OGL itself satisfies the terms of the 5% simply by its inclusion.  The ethical arguments aside, of course, I am not advocating this usage but it is an interesting loophole that I believe WotC should close in the furture in the d20 System License and Guide.  I do, however, bring this up for good reason.Back on track...So, a company name which appears in a section 15 for a product is almost always PI'd is an example of a PI'd term which (except for in the license) does not usually appear elsewhere in a product where it would also require being PI'd in the firstplace except in the section 15 which has its own protection built in.  When someone PI's their company name they almost always also PI their company logo.  But does the company logo appear anywhere else in a work that would require that it be PI'd, except in 100% OGC works?  Not except in rare instances since most products, in their OGC declaration, make sure to further point toward "text" as OGC (perhaps mainly in order to avoid other images, regardless of being a logo, from being mistaken for OGC).So there are many products that support that idea that something which falls outside of OGC areas can be PI'd.  Technically, does including a number of terms within the PI statement constitute proper use of the PI statement as a means to PI terms which only appear within the statement itself?  I think so.If nothing else inclusion of terms within a PI statement is a safeguard against accidental inclusion of terms elsewhere in OGC sections of a work which a company wishes to reserve as PI for all or other of their works.  The PI statement becomes a circular inclusion of PI'd terms but I do not think that is disallowed under the terms of the license.</blockquote>

Verification