I feel that internal references are "marketing or
advertising".
Taken
from one of your posts:
"for more
information on racial levels see _Savage_Species_"
Whether you are citing OGL or non OGL products you are (since you are using the OGL) still bound by the definitions of the OGL. In the Savage Speicies example since the title "Savage Species" is a trademark as defined by Section 1(f), you couldn't contribute that trademark to your material because you lack the sufficent rights to do so. You can't declare it OGC or PI because you didn't create it and are not licensed to do so by the owner.
It's also my
feeling that since you are refering them to that product you are saying I am
compatiable or adaptable (or vice versa) to work with that product so by
my reading they are in violation of Section 5 & 7.
Am I overly cautious or off base with my reading of the
OGL?
bryan
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 1:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Re: Credits/Compatibility
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 1:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Re: Credits/Compatibility
In a message dated 8/27/03 1:56:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<snip>"11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so."
So even if you are correct with the below example wouldn't Section 11 still hang you up?
>>
That's true. I'd been so thoroughly focused on the compatibility declaration that I'd forgotten the prohibition against contributor name prohibition. Re: my "Clownworks Enterprises SRD" example (with no declared PI), that opens up a different barrel of monkeys -- whether internal references to contributors' works that weren't declared as PI are per se "marketing or advertising". If not, then you aren't using the contributor's name in marketing and advertising and you aren't using any PI. If "see X rulebook for more information" is a bit of marketing and/or advertising then Section 11 governs.
That still doesn't address Savage Species, though. That book is not covered by the OGL at all, and so my question still stands, at some level unanswered: when does an implied compatibility cross the line re: the OGL? If you mention "Savage Species" but not "WotC" then you aren't using PI. Are you making a compatibility declaration.
Thanks for your comments.
Lee
