> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug
> Meerschaert
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 4:04 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Ogf-l] SRD released (apparantly)
>
>
> Don't know if their web-staff jumped the gun, or if it's just up nice
> and early, but
No. They just want to prevent it from continuing.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-
But, can they go actually go after products that use only the SRD instead of
the RSRD?
Paul
[input]
They're clearly gearing up to go after products titled "D20 X".
___
But, can they go actually go after products that use only the SRD instead of the RSRD?PaulThey're clearly gearing up to go after products titled "D20 X".
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 16:40, David Bolack wrote:
> My reasonable man's presumption is "d20 (when used a trademark)" means any
> usage where "d20" is effectively shorthand or an abbreviation for "d20
> System." -- which is a registered trademark. This certainly doesn't seem
> out of line.
That
> My reasonable man's presumption is "d20 (when used a
> trademark)" means any
> usage where "d20" is effectively shorthand or an
> abbreviation for "d20
> System." -- which is a registered trademark. This
> certainly doesn't seem
> out of line.
I have a question so basic that I'm almost embar
At 02:32 PM 7/21/2003, you wrote:
AFrom Legal.rtf: The following items are designated Product Identity, as
defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are
subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not
Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Dungeo
>At 7:36 -0500 7/22/03, Eric Baierl wrote:
>>>But you're right, taken at face value, you can't so much as refer
>>>to "roll Strength + d20" without infringing.
>>>--
>>>woodelf <*>
>>
>>But you could refer to "roll Strength + 1d20" which is what most
>>non-d20 companies do anyway (or 1D20)
In a message dated 7/22/2003 12:00:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How would using two sources, with conflicting PI work anyways?
They have no, per se, conflict. One has no declaration. The other does.
Book A: Use whatever you want, including the word apples
Book B: Us
In a message dated 7/22/2003 10:52:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
of marketing or advertising, include the back cover text of a
product. This means that any company that creates an OGL product,
that does not use the d20STL can no longer claim that that it is
"based on
At 7:36 -0500 7/22/03, Eric Baierl wrote:
But you're right, taken at face value, you can't so much as refer
to "roll Strength + d20" without infringing.
--
woodelf<*>
But you could refer to "roll Strength + 1d20" which is what most
non-d20 companies do anyway (or 1D20)
So when th
On 22 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] SRD released
(apparantly):
> I'd say that it's a pretty smart thing to do. If you have a wide
> reaching PI declaration that covers a lot of your important PI then
> you can use that PI declaration again
On 22 Jul 2003 woodelf scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] SRD released (apparantly):
> >You mean, like producing a d20 product that even refers to a "d20" as
> >a variance die or a damage die or anything? Claiming "d20",
> >unmodified, as PI basically
In a message dated 7/22/03 9:36:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
I'd say it's OGC if you use a version of the content with the OGC grant or it's PI if you use a PI'd version.
As a parallel example: let's assume I design a video game that's got only one level in it.
ll
a.k.a. Tir Gwaith
- Original Message -
From: "woodelf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] SRD released (apparantly)
At 17:32 -0400 7/21/03, Joe Mucchiello wrote:
>From Legal.rtf: The following items
But you're right, taken at face value, you can't so much as refer to "roll
Strength + d20" without infringing.
--
woodelf<*>
But you could refer to "roll Strength + 1d20" which is what most non-d20
companies do anyway (or 1D20)
baierl
___
--- Matthew Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had a look at the 3.5 bundle and it does not contain the new 3.5
> stuff. The tell tail sign is that the ranger still has d10 hit dice.
>
> Best get the individual files methinks. They are up to date as far as I
> can tell.
Except, as has alread
I had a look at the 3.5 bundle and it does not contain the new 3.5
stuff. The tell tail sign is that the ranger still has d10 hit dice.
Best get the individual files methinks. They are up to date as far as I
can tell.
M:)
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL
At 22:21 -0400 7/21/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 7/21/03 9:54:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[In case anyone cares: i stick by my guns that they can't claim "d20"
as trademark *or* PI. I wonder if i'll ever do anything that
challenges that claim.]
>
Hey, Andy!
Let me add another chorus of "Good job, man!"
...and also a tiny refrain of "The srdpsionicpowersijklmnop.rtf file seems
to be missing, though."
-- Joe Crow/Glasscastle Productions
d20 Games and Campaign Settings/Freelance Game Writing
_
On 21 Jul 2003 woodelf scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] SRD released (apparantly):
> more likely, it's because now they have a leg to stand on if they want
> to stop people putting "d20" in the title of their non-D20STL book.
> And other similar things--the vast majori
In a message dated 7/21/03 9:54:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
Without further clarification this would seem to limit people from referring to their game as "having a d20 based task resolution system" or even referring to a "d20 roll".
How the heck can they claim d20
At 18:36 -0400 7/21/03, Joe Mucchiello wrote:
At 05:42 PM 7/21/2003 -0400, Sixten Otto wrote:
Do any of those terms actually occur in the files?
Apparently not, this list was just in case a mistake was made most likely.
more likely, it's because now they have a leg to stand on if they
want to sto
At 17:41 -0400 7/21/03, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
Sure. Take a look at any monster--the stat block is formatted as a
real honest-to-goodness table, and is follwed immediatly by :
"
Harpies like to entrance hapless travelers with their magical songs
and lead them to unspeakable torments. Only whe
At 17:32 -0400 7/21/03, Joe Mucchiello wrote:
From Legal.rtf: The following items are designated Product Identity,
as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a,
and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL,
and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons,
On Monday 21 July 2003 05:41 pm, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
> Sure. Take a look at any monster--the stat block is formatted as a real
> honest-to-goodness table, and is follwed immediatly by :
Home now, and as I catch up on this thread I'm realizing I had the full zip
which turned out to be of 3.0.
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 14:20, Smith, Andrew wrote:
> Let's just blame that on burnout from working on the
> SRD for a month straight.
Speaking from personal experience, I say "Excellent work well done!"
Drinks at GenCon (if you'll be there) on me.
Ryan
_
> From: Smith, Andrew
>
> Thanks, Doug. The web team didn't jump the gun, I just
> forgot that we had said it would be up within a few days of
> the book's release. Let's just blame that on burnout from
> working on the SRD for a month straight. After I was
> reminded of our promised rele
At 06:35 PM 7/21/2003 -0400, Steven \"Conan\" Trustrum wrote:
I'm thinking that I'll wait a while before I download the new SRD. I'd
hate to start work on something only to later find out that half of what I
was using were 3.0 files mistakenly left on the site, or something of the sort.
It should
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:16:33 EDT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a message dated 7/21/03 6:05:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<> Do any of those terms actually occur in the files? (I'm looking, but
I > just discovered that the ZIP versions are still the 3.0 SRD files,
a
I'm thinking that I'll wait a while before I download the new SRD. I'd hate
to start work on something only to later find out that half of what I was
using were 3.0 files mistakenly left on the site, or something of the sort.
Steven "Conan" Trustrum
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://
At 11:31 PM 7/21/2003 +0100, David Chart wrote:
As Doug said, the big zip still has the old SRD in. The smaller zips do
seem to have the new one, though.
True. The Psionics zip seems to be MIA, though.
Sixten
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ht
At 05:42 PM 7/21/2003 -0400, Sixten Otto wrote:
At 05:32 PM 7/21/2003 -0400, Joe Mucchiello wrote:
No more "Wizards doesn't have PI" rebuttals.
Do any of those terms actually occur in the files? (I'm looking, but I
just discovered that the ZIP versions are still the 3.0 SRD files, and
have NOT be
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 23:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I downloaded the master ZIP file. Did anyone else finding it missing
> Barbarian-Monk character classes? I found those elsewhere on the SRD
> page.
>
> Also, somebody told me Rangers have a d8 for HD. Is that right? The
> SRD says d10.
A
*chuckle*
Except the Psionic one doesn't seem to be downloading, but since
psionics hasn't been updated.. you can download the psionics stuff
through the master zip file and then just download the rest of the
mini-zip files.
Doug Meerschaert wrote:
Sixten Otto wrote:
Do any of those terms act
In a message dated 7/21/03 6:05:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<> Do any of those terms actually occur in the files? (I'm looking, but I
> just discovered that the ZIP versions are still the 3.0 SRD files, and
> have NOT been updated.)
>>
Oops -- that may explain my pu
I downloaded the master ZIP file. Did anyone else finding it missing Barbarian-Monk character classes? I found those elsewhere on the SRD page.
Also, somebody told me Rangers have a d8 for HD. Is that right? The SRD says d10.
Lee
Sixten Otto wrote:
Do any of those terms actually occur in the files? (I'm looking, but I
just discovered that the ZIP versions are still the 3.0 SRD files, and
have NOT been updated.)
The mini-ZIPs do.
DM
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ht
--- Joe Mucchiello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From Legal.rtf: The following items are designated Product Identity, as
> defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are
> subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not
> Open Content: Ever
At 05:32 PM 7/21/2003 -0400, Joe Mucchiello wrote:
No more "Wizards doesn't have PI" rebuttals.
Do any of those terms actually occur in the files? (I'm looking, but I just
discovered that the ZIP versions are still the 3.0 SRD files, and have NOT
been updated.)
Sixten
__
From: "Joe Mucchiello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> mind flayer, illithid,
Odd, they didn't put the Illithid back in. I guess that was since they're
mentioned elsewhere like the Grimlock entry.
-Damian
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.ope
At 02:20 PM 7/21/2003 -0700, Smith, Andrew wrote:
Let's just blame that on burnout from working on the SRD for a month straight.
Well, from what I've seen of your work so far, let me commend you on the
result. The revised SRD looks great! Thanks for all of your hard (and, I'm
sure, tedious) work.
Damian wrote:
Tables and monster descriptions?? I know I'm looking at the 3.5 SRD, but
I'm not seeing any of those things. Can you give me some examples?
Sure. Take a look at any monster--the stat block is formatted as a
real honest-to-goodness table, and is follwed immediatly by :
"
At 05:03 PM 7/21/2003 -0400, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
Don't know if their web-staff jumped the gun, or if it's just up nice and
early, but the 3.5 SRD is up on WotC's website.
More after I digest it--but on first looks, I must say that I am very
impressed with it. Still RTF, but with real tables
have it pushed forward. Looks like it worked.
Andy Smith
Publishing/d20 Licensing
Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Doug Meerschaert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 2:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Ogf-l] SRD released (apparantly)
Don&
From: "Doug Meerschaert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> More after I digest it--but on first looks, I must say that I am very
> impressed with it. Still RTF, but with real tables--and monster
> descriptions.
Tables and monster descriptions?? I know I'm looking at the 3.5 SRD, but
I'm not seeing any of th
From: "Doug Meerschaert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Don't know if their web-staff jumped the gun, or if it's just up nice
> and early, but the 3.5 SRD is up on WotC's website.
Wow, talk about a different definition of midnight! ;) That must have just
hit, I just double checked the SRD there with the M
Don't know if their web-staff jumped the gun, or if it's just up nice
and early, but the 3.5 SRD is up on WotC's website.
More after I digest it--but on first looks, I must say that I am very
impressed with it. Still RTF, but with real tables--and monster
descriptions.
Andy, if you're still o
47 matches
Mail list logo
