Martin-
I've tried to comply with the d20 license though
remember that right now we are in the strange position
of not being under the d20 license.
I have tried only to use the language they approve.
And I try to use 3rd edition rather than D&D. Where I
use D&D I try to do it for news or descriptive
purposes. I agree with you that the biggest problem
may be 3.3.3.
I have emailed WotC and asked them if they have any
objections. I told them I would gladly make any
changes they require. Aside from Ryan's general email,
I havent heard anything from them.
I did remove some content based on Ryan's letter. I
had some product descriptions that used to refer to
titles of classic modules and I though I should remove
that stuff.
I cant imagine that if they have a problem with my D&D
reference that that would void a right to distribute.
I'm hoping if they have an objection, they will email
me. I mean, if they notice my site enough to notice a
percieved violation, they can certainly email me. I am
more than willing to do what they want. But I think
right now I am using the D&D reference properly. I
have tried to be very careful in my wording.
WotC--if you are reading this and you object to any
content on my site let me know and I will change it
right away!
Anyway, thanks for the comments about the site--I
apprectiate it.
Clark Peterson
=====
http://www.necromancergames.com
"3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
