In a message dated 7/22/03 4:24:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But if that's the case, what will happen to those products that already
have the 'd20' in their title?
Presumably nothing if they aren't derived from SRD 3.5. The PI restriction is applied, more or less, to t
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> But if that's the case, what will happen to those products that already
> have the 'd20' in their title?
Nothing. They were derived from the original version of the SRD. Updating
them to the new version without using the d20 STL may be problematic.
-Brad
_
> The bigger question is this: does the term 'd20' as an identifying mark
> differ from the use of 'd20' as a game mechanic. It seems clear that it
> does, meaning you ought to be able to use the term 'd20' when describing
a
> mechanic (roll a d20 and add your class level) but not otherwise
(Cyber
> Tim Dugger
>
> But they cannot now claim it as PI when it was released as open
> previously.
>
> From their FAQ:
> Q: If I identify something as Product Identity that was previously
> distributed as Open Game Content, does the material become Product
> Identity?
>
> A: No. Once content has been d
In a message dated 7/22/03 3:36:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
previously.
>>
When you derive from the original copyrighted source (without the OGL involved) you can create a separate iteration of the work with new and unusual licensing requirements. WotC has the power
On 22 Jul 2003 Brad scribbled a note about RE: [Ogf-l] Closing OGC:
> You're missing the solution that WotC obviously intends for folks to
> follow regarding the d20 issue - the d20 STL constitutes a separate
> agreement to use the term.
But they cannot now claim it as PI when it w
> Tim Dugger
>
> So what you are saying is that if a person or company wants to use
> the term d20, then they have to follow the 3.0 SRD, and not 3.5 SRD?
>
> Wow! This means that the flood of OGL products for 3.5 won't happen
> like it did for 3.0. At least that is how I read it...
You're mis
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:44:35 -0500
"Tim Dugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So what you are saying is that if a person or company wants to use
> the term d20, then they have to follow the 3.0 SRD, and not 3.5
> SRD?
>
> Wow! This means that the flood of OGL products for 3.5 won't happen
> l
r" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Closing OGC
> On 22 Jul 2003 Spike scribbled a note about [Ogf-l] Closing OGC:
>
> > But there's nothing to prevent you from declaring something you
> > produc
On 22 Jul 2003 Spike scribbled a note about [Ogf-l] Closing OGC:
> But there's nothing to prevent you from declaring something you
> produce yourself to be OGC in one book and PI in another. And if
> someone else wants to use the OGC version of whatever it is that
> you've PI'ed later, they can do
10 matches
Mail list logo
