William Olander wrote:
>>>Wrong. The material is now OGC. You can sub-license it to them if you can
>>>
>get them to agree to such terms but there is nothing that says they *need*
>to do so. moreover the material is OGC and cannot be declared "closed".
>Finally, and this is the "hooker" if a product uses OGC material they *must*
>adhere to the OGL.<<
>
>There is no way that this is correct. Despite it being Wizard's doing the
>lisencing, Ravenloft, Kingdoms of Kalamar, and heck pretty much all of the
>D&D stuff instantly becomes OGC.
>
No, because none of them derive from the SRD. They all derive from the
PHB, DMG, MM, etc, which are NOT OGC.
I don't know if anyone here is an OOP programmer, but think of
this...(This is not in a real language)
object opencontent
{
int i;
}
object closedcontent
{
int i;
}
object myobject::opentcontent
{
int i,j;
}
object yourobject::closedcontent
{
int i,j;
}
Structurally, "opencontent" and "closedcontent" are identical. However,
"myobject", which inherits from opencontent, is open, while
'yourobject', which inherits from closedcontent, is closed.
An object (game) which is based on WOTCs closed content is not subject
to the OGL, even if the exact words in the closed content are replicated
in the SRD. Ravenloft, KoK, etc, are all based on closed content.
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
