> From: Ryan S. Dancey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 11:07 PM
> From: "Tim Dugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > While I agree with the requirement of OGL content, Wouldn't that
> > 10% rules cause some OGL/d20 material not to fit the definition,
> > and thus not be eligile. For example, I create my own campaign
> > setting. I have a product that counts out to 100 pages. According
> > to this rule, if I do not have at least 10 page of OGL content, I
> > cannot use the d20 logo. Perhaps all the actual system information
> > takes up only 5 pages. This would disqualify my product, yet
> > according to all other tests, it would pass.
>
> Yup.
>
> I'd love to see some debate. I think there is an abusive
> point where you
> have someone putting one line of OGC into a product just so
> they can affix
> the D20 trademark and try to pass the product off as
> something valuable to
> the D20 consumer network. This suggestion seeks to make that
> impossible to
> do by raising the threshold of what it means to be a "D20
> System" product.
>
> I'm certainly open to other suggestions.
Measuring reasonable derivation from OGC in a legally defensible manner is,
I think, going to be rather tricky. Requiring that x% of a product contain
OGC, for instance, is easy to do an end-run around.
In particular, for a product that is electronically distributed, a publisher
could merely append x pages/words (however percent is measured - another
area in need of clarification) that are merely copied from the SRD or
another OGC source, regardless of their relevance. E.g., (being absurd
here...) one could publish a 3000 word essay on why roleplaying is Satanic,
stick a random 300-word section from the SRD on its own page, paste in the
OGL and slap a d20 on the front page; definitely not in the spirit of the
STL, but within the 10% rule nonetheless.
Yeah, that's an absurd example, but it illustrates the mechanics involved.
