On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 21:55, Bill Olander wrote: > Which is the case for all other publishers as well. Going back to an old > example: I could release a PDF file on my website declared as 100% OGC. In > it I have a monster "The Pepsi Golem" made from Pepsi cans. > > Use of 'Pepsi' is in violation of the OGL therefor just because its on my > website as OGC doesn't mean it actually is OGC. > > Thus being in violation, thus activating the cure period. Someone e-mail > WotC and start counting off their 30 days.
Except that the parallel is Pepsi Co. putting the PDF on their website with the OGC declaration (as part of an advertising campaign, say). Everyone agrees that WotC *could* have opened "Dungeon Master". The argument is over whether, by including it in an official release under the OGL, they actually have, or whether such inclusion does not actually imply that the content so released has been opened. (And, incidentally, I think you would have to be a certifiable idiot to use the term in a book published under the OGL and/or d20 STL. It might be arguable in court, but you would have to do that, and WotC has Bigger Scarier Lawyers, and frankly it's not worth the bother.) -- David Chart http://www.dchart.demon.co.uk/ PGP Key: 1786 15B1 53A3 7ED0 CBD4 AFBE 9B61 6D10 46C9 1CBE _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
