- Original Message -
From: "Doug Meerschaert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 6:54 PM
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:22:21 -0500, woodelf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Long answer: With the exception of Unearthed Arcana and a couple
> > monsters (in either MMII or FF--i fo
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Damian wrote:
> > There is. And apparently it has succeeded in being subtle enough that
> > it's not obvious: one of them always uses "you", while the other
> > always uses "your character" (right now, i forget which is which, and
> > i don't feel like checking because it does
On Thursday 12 August 2004 05:09 pm, woodelf wrote:
> There is. And apparently it has succeeded in being subtle enough that
> it's not obvious: one of them always uses "you", while the other
> always uses "your character" (right now, i forget which is which, and
> i don't feel like checking because
At 15:20 -0400 8/12/04, DarkTouch wrote:
I like the 'closely parallels' line and think it would be funny if there
were specific key points where they differed in presentation that would work
as key markers for WotC to check and see if you were copying out of the SRD
or the Player's Handbook. Grante
At 13:52 -0400 8/12/04, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:25:17 -0500, woodelf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Furthermore, i thought that the title of a single work was, perhaps
with exceptions, not trademarkable--only series of works could
benefit from trademark protection.
Hence, the
I like the 'closely parallels' line and think it would be funny if there
were specific key points where they differed in presentation that would work
as key markers for WotC to check and see if you were copying out of the SRD
or the Player's Handbook. Granted a developer would have to be stupid not
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:22:21 -0500, woodelf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Long answer: With the exception of Unearthed Arcana and a couple
> monsters (in either MMII or FF--i forget), none of WotC's books have
> OGC in them. However, WotC *has* released the D20SRD, which can be
> found, among other
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:25:17 -0500, woodelf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Furthermore, i thought that the title of a single work was, perhaps
> with exceptions, not trademarkable--only series of works could
> benefit from trademark protection.
Hence, the definition of "trademark" in the OGL.
[(f)
woodelf wrote:
<>
The monsters are in the back of the MMII. There's also considerable ogc in d20 Modern
Weapons Locker.
Owen K.C. Stephens
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
At 13:43 + 8/12/04, Daniel Marshall wrote:
The source I assume is the book that I would be getting the terms
from. And where would that designation of open content be found?
Beginning of the book? End of the book?
Yes. Usually on the credits, table-of-contents, or title page. Since
you are
At 10:41 -0400 8/12/04, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
And don't forget that trademarks--even unclaimed ones, like the mere
title of a single book--are given special protection by the OGL.
Huh? How can you have an unclaimed trademark? I understood that one
of the requirements of trademark status is that
In a message dated 8/12/2004 10:31:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not to
sound ignorant but what is the SRD?
visit
http://members.aol.com/veritasgames/fudge_ogl_faq.html
What is an SRD?
"SRD" means System Reference Document. Typically, but not
always, its a
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel
Marshall
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 8:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] D20 OGL
The source I assume is the book that I would be getting the terms from.
And
where would that designation of open content be found
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 01:17:42 -0400, Scott Broadbent
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In addition, under the "White Out" theory, only those terms which
> actually appear within a section of OGC, could actually be declared as
> PI. Some companies declare their logos as PI. Unless the logo is
> actuall
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] D20 OGL
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:51:16 -0400
PI: Somewhere in the source (assuming that the source is published under
the
OGL), the publisher is supposed to have a 'designat
Not to sound ignorant but what is the SRD?
Steelight Shadowborne
From: Scott Broadbent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] D20 OGL
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 01:17:42 -0400
<<
I am very new to this but I would like to know what coun
In a message dated 8/12/2004 12:39:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am
very new to this but I would like to know what counts as PI and what I can
use. I'm also really confused as to what kind of stuff I can use, what
I need written permission for and what I si
<<
I am very new to this but I would like to know what counts as PI and
what I can use. I'm also really confused as to what kind of stuff I can
use, what I need written permission for and what I simply cannot include.
>>
Every few months a particular discussion regarding PI resurfaces in
vario
ublisher in
question.
Steven Trustrum
President For Life (or until the money runs out)
Misfit Studios
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel
Marshall
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Ogf-l] D20 O
been happening about 'asking permission' has been around
courtesy...its not required by the OGL.
Paul W. King
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Daniel
Marshall
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Marshall
>
> I am very new to this but I would like to know what
> counts as PI and what I can use. I'm also really
> confused as to what kind of stuff I can use, what
> I need written permission for and what I simply
> cannot include.
You can only use
I am very new to this but I would like to know what counts as PI and what I
can use. I'm also really confused as to what kind of stuff I can use, what
I need written permission for and what I simply cannot include.
Daniel
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL
> With an increasing number of OGL works being composed in part
> (sometimes very large part) of non-SRD contributions to Open
> Content, a lawsuit and legal threat in the area of Linux may
> be of interest to folks on this list. Here's one article on the topic:
>
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/
With an increasing number of OGL works being composed in part (sometimes
very large part) of non-SRD contributions to Open Content, a lawsuit and
legal threat in the area of Linux may be of interest to folks on this list.
Here's one article on the topic:
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/technology/co
Andrew McDougall wrote:
You couldn't tell if it was. MM2 has only the OGL v.1.0 in
its Sec. 15. Doesn't even list itself, which bothers me more
than a little
Oh, yeah. I'd forgotten that WotC screwed up their own license.
Justin Bacon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Whenever I write for a D20 product I make a point of
> including the specific
> Section 15 content that needs to be included in the
> final product. All
> they've got to do is copy and paste the material
> into the Section 15 of the
> book and they're good to go.
We require our authors to bot
Yeah, their OGC designation was not very good. They
didnt do it right. They even credited the Creature
Collection to Necromancer Games, when instead it was
SSS. But that was a bit confusing because it is
copyrighted to me. So I can understand that one.
Clark
--- Tir Gwaith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
--- Tir Gwaith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (Not having seen the book in question, I'm assuming that the MM2 wasn't
> > mentioned in the Section 15 of the product at all. I could easily be
> > mistaken.)
>
> You couldn't tell if it was. MM2 has only the OGL v.1.0 in its Sec. 15.
> Doesn't even
> (Not having seen the book in question, I'm assuming that the MM2 wasn't
> mentioned in the Section 15 of the product at all. I could easily be
> mistaken.)
You couldn't tell if it was. MM2 has only the OGL v.1.0 in its Sec. 15.
Doesn't even list itself, which bothers me more than a little
Andr
In a message dated 4/11/2003 3:49:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Having read the list of infractions, all I can say is that Jim Ward
having to destroy product due to use of 'Drawmij' pegged my irony meter.
We don't actually know that any product was destroyed. The releas
At 06:32 PM 4/12/2003 +, Justin Bacon took quill in hand to say:
(Not having seen the book in question, I'm assuming that the MM2 wasn't
mentioned in the Section 15 of the product at all. I could easily be mistaken.)
I gather that the product in question used monsters from MM2 that weren't
OG
Steve Creech wrote:
I talked with Fast Forward last week about Enchanted Locations
and their response was that the author was under the assumption
that the OGL declaratin in the back of Monster Manual II meant
the stuff was open content. Rule number one for writers: Know
what the license means!
Whe
32 matches
Mail list logo
