From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug
Meerschaert
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 11:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] OGL and Intellectual Property
<< > I missed this statement. I hope he can clarify, because this sounds
> frightening. If I build an adventure which usues ONLY existing monsters,
> magic items, etc., I would want the adventure to be closed, period.
No... the magic items, monsters, and the rest could be argued to be
"derivitive", and thus open. >>
Which of course compels me to comply with the OGL: including a copy of the
OGL, etc.
<< Y'know, outside of a law class, I never heard "xerox" used as a verb...
>>
I used to hear it a lot, back in college: "Hey, would you xerox that for
me?" Either the usage faded on its own -- probably true (though frankly, the
fewer number of syllables makes me prefer "xerox" over "photocopy") -- or
Xerox succeeded in their efforts to educate people. I have no idea.
<< And, if you haven't noticed, the recent PHB adds have the d20 logo on
them.
And we're told that the D&D and Star Wars rulebooks will have the same
logo... >>
I hadn't noticed. Haven't seen a Dragon or Dungeon in about four months.
(Consulting has me FAR busier than I ever expected.) I stand corrected. Of
course, until the licenses are approved and issued and the books are
printed, we won't know Wizards' final decision.
Martin L. Shoemaker
Emerald Software, Inc. -- Custom Software and UML Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.EmeraldSoftwareInc.com
www.UMLBootCamp.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
