From: "Tim Dugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Would this include permissions to reference those rulebooks?
> Such as saying "refer to the chapter on Combat Actions in the
> Players's Handbook(TM)" or "see the description of <insert spell
> name> in the Player's Handbook"
Yes, I think we should have a fairly liberal policy about cross-linking in
products that comply with the D20 trademark terms. Although I will continue
to suggest (and might even write it in to the license) that publishers not
refer to sections of the book by page number.
> We can't redefine terms/stats, but we can replace them totally?
Yes.
> What about adding additional ones (with an attendant new
> definition) without a problem? Thus a person could decline to use
> any of the normal six stats, and define a whole new set of stats
> with new definitions?
Yes, that would be fine.
> What happens if several of these new stats are calculated stats?
This is a place where the balance between the design freedom and the safe
harbor conflict. The easier it is to define how to calculate stats, the
easier it will be for a clever designer to try and sneak around the safe
harbor provisions.
The suggestions I put forth start with the assumption that you could not
describe how to generate stats in a D20 trademarked product. That may turn
out to be overly restrictive at some point and require a license revision.
But it is something of a one-way gate - going through that gate means it
would be hard (if even possible) to go back the other way if a problem does
arise.
> While I agree with the requirement of OGL content, Wouldn't that
> 10% rules cause some OGL/d20 material not to fit the definition,
> and thus not be eligile. For example, I create my own campaign
> setting. I have a product that counts out to 100 pages. According
> to this rule, if I do not have at least 10 page of OGL content, I
> cannot use the d20 logo. Perhaps all the actual system information
> takes up only 5 pages. This would disqualify my product, yet
> according to all other tests, it would pass.
Yup.
I'd love to see some debate. I think there is an abusive point where you
have someone putting one line of OGC into a product just so they can affix
the D20 trademark and try to pass the product off as something valuable to
the D20 consumer network. This suggestion seeks to make that impossible to
do by raising the threshold of what it means to be a "D20 System" product.
I'm certainly open to other suggestions.
> You might possibly want to open this up to utilities for such things
> as character generation (possibly requiring it to be freeware - and
> yes, I know about MasterTools, but they have a completely
> seperate contract with WOTC - different animal altogether), or
> combat tracking utilities, etc.....
That is one of the first places I think we will look to do some loosening.
It may be vastly simpler in the long run to have a D20 System Trademark
license for software rather than trying for an omnibus license.
> The same should apply to certain spell names (like the Bigby's
> spells), they should be renamed in the SRD to a more generic
> name, and then the STL can allow the use of the more commonly
> known name.
That's a good point.
Ryan
