>While I agree that site wasn't full of legal wisdom, it convinced me
>that some jerk can ruin everything, and that it's prudent to take
>steps to prevent this. I also see why a lawyer wouldn't be happy
>allowing as much as Issaries is.
Some jerk with a friendly lawyer is always able to ruin everything. Unfortunatly the response of tying everything up in red tape rarely has a positive effect and can't be relied on to solve the problem.
>>Note: I'm not suggesting fans should avoid licencing stuff they
>>want to publish, just that those who don't *may* find themselves
>>in a stronger legal position than those who do.
>
>I don't think it makes any difference. You can't create a work set in
>Glorantha without being aware of Glorantha. And any such work is a
>derivative work. Sure, if you don't license, you can't possibly
>violate a license. But you would be just as much in violation of
>copyright.
Read the article again. The main point it makes, supported by case law, is that derivative work is not a violation of copyright but a separate work provided that it is sufficently different. "Sufficently different" being defined by the courts on a case by case basis.
This reflects the principle of English copyright law that you can't copyright an idea only a "work".
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail