John-
Thanks for the well-considered response.
I think Steve's post probably hit the list after your
email. I think he addressed most of your concerns and
explained more fully why SSS did what they did.
I dont mean to cause confusion about SSS. I have input
on the decisions but I dont have final say. So I can
enlighten you on the decision making I am involved
with, but I dont have the discretion or power to
change them. So that is why I say I cant speak for
them.
Literally, we were updating the d20 license right
before going to press. We wanted to be as current as
possible. But that left little time to debate the
ramifications. As you may recall, the change to
detailing PI and how exactly that should be done didnt
happen until later. In fact, I offered my legal text
from Crucible as an example of how to do that process.
The lack of license for the names was becaus I dont
think anyone saw a real problem, or maybe I should say
a problem that is of limited scope. And no one really
know how the PI thing was going to play out. I guess
the real problem is that the idea was to make the
monsters available to producers but that apparently
wasnt properly communicated. WW took the conservative
approach. I think Steve spelled that out in his post.
I still have to disagree with your assertion that
there is any value to a person putting the stuff on
the net. Using WW/SSS PI (to which I hold the
copyright) would be just like posting your copyrighted
module text on the net--a lawsuit waiting to happen. I
may be a little sensitive about this because of Kal's
prior rants about "forcing content open."
Plus, I guess I dont see the CC as "playing PI to the
hilt." There is tons of content that could be PI that
isnt in made PI in the CC. New feats, powers, etc.
None of that had to be open. But it is. The only thing
I think people are debating are the names. I dont
think anyone would require the setting and flavor
stuff to be open in the CC, just like no one would
expect your (or my) module text to be open. That
basically just leaves names. And Steve addressed the
SSS stance on that.
By the fervor of my tone, please dont think I am
upset. I feel this is a good and productive
discussion. (Except for the part seemingly encouraging
a net book of the CC).
I frankly dont have a problem with SSS keeping the
names as PI. As Steve said, that may change based on
what WotC does.
Clark
=====
http://www.necromancergames.com
"3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
