>> "This collection of essays constitutes a compilation.
>> While the compilation as a whole is not covered by the
>> OGL, the text of section 2 constitutes a work which is
>> covered by the OGL. The art in section 2 constitutes
>> a separate work which is not covered by the OGL."
>> In th
> So I chose option 2. PI all the names and provide a blanket
> license for all spell names. That is easier and simpler for everyone.
>
> I actually went out of my way to make reuse EASIER for everyone.
>
>
> It pisses me off to hear whiny criticism of something I went
> out of my way to do ni
> > Try Shade Sword or Umbral Weapon or Shadow Sword.
>
> Seems to me that the nose of the original creator OUGHT to be
> tweaked. He clearly does not want to abide by the terms of
> the OGL which is to allow things to be reused.
I disagree.
I think Clark has done a wonderful job in both cont
I thought I'd ask the community their thoughts on this:
A spell that has been submitted to the D20 Exchange comes from a book that
declares all it's spell names as PI, and then provides a license to use that
spell name (as long as it's marked as PI, and proper attribution is given to
the copyright
> >So we moved on to two other projects, XML and OGC Archives. Both of
> >those have also slowed to a crawl due to lack of time (on
> the part of
> >the project leaders) and lack of volunteers to assist.
> >-
>
> Is it still an option to use the Prometheus system an
Logos, and explicitly allowed
character creation & advancement rules.
So we moved on to two other projects, XML and OGC Archives. Both of
those have also slowed to a crawl due to lack of time (on the part of
the project leaders) and lack of volunteers to assist.
--
Michae
>> If you can just source a concept from the public
>> domain then you can defeat any PI declaration for
>> a concept.
You first have to find that concept in the public domain.
If the only place you find that concept, is in a OGL work, and it
doesn't exist anywhere else, then you can't use it.
>> This unprecedented action marks the first time a
> third-party RPG publisher has released a comprehensive SRD of its d20
> System game to the gaming public,
Uh.
Wasn't an Action! SRD released? {or am I remembering something wrong?}
--
Mike C.
___
>> Does anyone else share this particular reading of paragraph 9,
>> that material explicitly declared under OGL 2.0
>> as "Open Game Content" in fact would not necessarily be reprinted
>> under "any version" of the OGL?
Although I don't agree directly, I do agree indirectly.
You create a new
