Derivation does not necessarily imply compatibility.
If I
had the right to convert several OGC spells from the SRD into a new game system
using the text but not the actual mechanics then it would be derivative but not
compatible with the SRD.
Given
that 'conversion documents' get written all the time in this industry, it seems
hard to justify a claim made by a trademark owner that by naming them as a
source you are definitely indicating compatibility with their
works.
-Brad
-----Original Message-----In a message dated 8/27/03 12:27:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 10:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Re: Credits/Compatibility
One of my original citations involved no PI declaration at all. It was of this form (names of trademarks changed): "This SRD is a reformatted version of the SRD document originally produced by Clownworks Enterprises." Clownworks Enterprises never declared it's trademarks as PI because their trademarks appeared only in Section 15, and nowhere else.
<<Strictly speaking you probably are not in violation of claiming compatibility but you
would be in violation of section 7 by using PI without permission. >>
Consider the following example:
"Although a half-orc can multiclass freely
between half-orc levels and either orc or human levels, he
cannot take levels in both orc and human. For more on orc
racial levels, see Savage Species from Wizards of the Coast."
In this particular example, the WotC SRD _did_ appear in Section 15. So you are correct that "Wizards of the Coast" would likely be PI'd via the SRD. However, consider the case if "Savage Species" were mentioned without naming the vendor who produces it. Savage Species is not declared as PI, because it is not in any OGL product.
Is "for more information on racial levels see _Savage_Species_" a declaration of compatibility (a strongly implied one if not expressly declared one)?
Or is this sort of use fair game?
Clearly if this is a d20 STL product then you can't mention most WotC product names at all. But hypothetically, approach this as if it were an OGL-only case. Is this type of declaration a violation of the no-compatibility declaration clause of the OGL?
If not, then the no-compatibility declaration clause is pretty weak. It would allow you to say, "for more information on this subject see X rulebook" and effectively declare compatibility without expressly crossing the line. There are probably lots of RPG rulebooks for which people might want to make implied compatibility declarations.
Lee
