Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

At 18:26 -0500 2/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/2/2004 3:22:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not a single one of the half-dozen odd SRD-variant games I have includes a "this is what's different" page. Mutants & Masterminds, page 10 sidebar: "Under the

Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

- Original Message - From: "jdomsalla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In the Introduction, after the part where I hail and praise open gaming, I > intend to include a small section where I indicate incompatibility issues > with other gaming products *will likely* occur. I wish to indicate the > fo

Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

ot;Doug Meerschaert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims > jdomsalla wrote: > > >In the Introduction, after the part where I hail and praise open gaming, I > >intend t

Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mutants & Masterminds, page 10 sidebar: "Under the Mask: What's Different?". Oooh. M&M just moved one slot up on my wish list. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/o

Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

In a message dated 2/2/2004 3:22:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not a single one of the half-dozen odd SRD-variant games I have includes a "this is what's different" page.  Mutants & Masterminds, page 10 sidebar: "Under the Mask: What's Different?".   Chris PramasGreen R

Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

jdomsalla wrote: In the Introduction, after the part where I hail and praise open gaming, I intend to include a small section where I indicate incompatibility issues with other gaming products *will likely* occur. I wish to indicate the following... Why not just fulfill this gamer's fantasy, a

Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

Joe Mucchiello wrote: > I think you are overly worried about something most gamers do automatically. When looking at a new sourcebook for reuse in another setting, they automatically look to see what parts of it will need tweaking. Maybe a little. However, there is kind of this presumption about

Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

In a message dated 2/1/2004 8:52:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If someone tried to get on your case, accusing you of breaching the compatability claims clause, you'd have to be able to prove incompatability in order for this argument to hold up. Says who?  Why would you

Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, woodelf wrote: > If i put on my book "This game product is not > compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd Edition." am i in the clear > with the "no trademarks for compatibility/co-adaptability" clause? > Assuming this is a true claim--i'm envisioning a game book that is > d

Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

At 04:27 AM 2/1/2004 -0500, jdomsalla wrote: In the Introduction, after the part where I hail and praise open gaming, I intend to include a small section where I indicate incompatibility issues with other gaming products *will likely* occur. I wish to indicate the following... I think you are over

Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

ess release/advertisement, even to claim incompatibility; There are already plenty of ways to indicate that the material is derived from the "3rd edition of the world's premier role-playing game" without crossing that line. ~Jimmy Domsalla, QTGG - Original Message -----

[Ogf-l] "compatible" claims

Snagged this from a discussion on EnWorld: Originally posted by Bendris Noulg at There's a false assumption in this statement, however. For instance, does M&M worry about being seen as compatible? No, of course not. If anyth