> > The problem is that many of the spell names (the > > vast majority in the case > > of what's been submitted to me) -- are extremely > > generic names. Names that > > given the function of the spell, are really the > > best, most natural, names > > for what those spells do. > > I agree with that problem. That means we did a good > job naming the spells. :) But you have a license to > use the spell names. Given the license, what is the > seemingly desperate need to make an OGC name? The > license doesnt prohibit your use in any way, other > than that you cant designate it as pure OCG. It only > "hinders" (if you can even call it that) distribution > in a theoretical way, not in any practical way. Just > use the spell and then say "all spell names from > Relics and Rituals are used pursuant to a limited > license contained therein."
Rather defeats the purpose of the OGC Exchange if the user has to go out and buy Relics & Rituals to use the spell names, doesn't it? It becomes much more practical for them to replace the names with OGC ones. I'm not blasting you for doing what you did. I'd use the names without much qualms (though, ironically, I'd probably replace the proper names) in my own products. But the OGX isn't quite like other game products; and it's in the position of using a third license to allow use of your names, or finding new names to replace spells like "Minor Shadow Evocation", "Minor Shadow Conjuration", "Obscure Shadow", "Reshape Shadow", "Shadow Images", and "Shadow Shield". Cheers Nell. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
