Yes, that is essentially what we did. We then did not designate the spell names as open content (remember, this is way back when PI was a new concept, I would do it slightly differently today).
But I did several different drafts of several ways to license the content and the easiest and clearest way was to just say "you have a license to use all spell names" essentially. I wanted there to be as few questions as possible. I couldnt find (at the time) a more workable solution. And believe me, I tried. clark --- Doug Meerschaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Clark Peterson wrote: > > >As for the suggestion that we could have made it > all > >OGC, > > > The only suggestion worthwhile is that you PI what's > important--the > names of your gods et al--and OGC everything else. > Won't a claim of > "Ildur" as PI also keep the name out of "Ildur's > Smite" or "Bane of Ildur"? > > In fact, (I don't have my copy with me)--isn't that > what you did? > > > DM > > > _______________________________________________ > Ogf-l mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l ===== http://www.necromancergames.com "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel" _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
