Clark,
> Thanks for the well-considered response.
Likewise!
> I think Steve's post probably hit the list after your
> email. I think he addressed most of your concerns and
> explained more fully why SSS did what they did.
Yep, it turned up in my inbox after mine had gone out and before it had been
propagated back by the listserve.
> [snip]...I have input
> on the decisions but I dont have final say.[snip]
Understood.
> Literally, we were updating the d20 license right
> before going to press. We wanted to be as current as
> possible. But that left little time to debate the
> ramifications. As you may recall, the change to
> detailing PI and how exactly that should be done didnt
> happen until later. In fact, I offered my legal text
> from Crucible as an example of how to do that process.
Understandable. IIRC, PI was introduced in some form in the penultimate
draft prior to the "live" version of 1.0, but with somewhat different terms.
> The lack of license for the names was becaus I dont
> think anyone saw a real problem, or maybe I should say
> a problem that is of limited scope. And no one really
> know how the PI thing was going to play out. I guess
> the real problem is that the idea was to make the
> monsters available to producers but that apparently
> wasnt properly communicated. WW took the conservative
> approach. I think Steve spelled that out in his post.
Yep, he made it clear. And I do want to reiterate that I think it's a
reasonable approach, but I'm lobbying for publishers to take as open an
approach as is comfortable when it comes to the crunchy bits that can get
reproduced and re-used in other contexts by other publishers.
> I still have to disagree with your assertion that
> there is any value to a person putting the stuff on
> the net. Using WW/SSS PI (to which I hold the
> copyright) would be just like posting your copyrighted
> module text on the net--a lawsuit waiting to happen. I
> may be a little sensitive about this because of Kal's
> prior rants about "forcing content open."
If we're talking about *PI* -- then I agree, of course. But I'm talking
about Open Game Content, that which is explicitly allowed to be duplicated
under the terms of the OGL.
Suppose, in Three Days to Kill, we had labeled the name of the monster "The
Wicker Man" as P.I. My understanding that someone could then copy all of
The Wicker Man, except renaming it as "The Underwater Woven Basket Man" to
avoid using our PI, and put it on the web (along with a copy of the OGL
citing 3D2K as the source of the stats and game description). Then other
publishers could do a summary version of The Underwater Woven Basket Man's
stats in their modules, with a note "See Monster Book X for complete monster
description." I've gone and cut myself out of the loop. I'd rather have
those notes just refer people straight to my book, without any confusion of
needing to translate names. (There may be enough of name-changing/dropping
confusion if we wind up all having to say "Clenching Fist" when we really
mean "Bigby's Clenching Fist" and so forth.)
> Plus, I guess I dont see the CC as "playing PI to the
> hilt." There is tons of content that could be PI that
> isnt in made PI in the CC. New feats, powers, etc.
> None of that had to be open. But it is. The only thing
> I think people are debating are the names.
I think I stand corrected, then. I haven't gotten to my FLGS to look
closely at the book. I think the monster names are important (and let me
clarify that I mean generic monster names, not proper names of
game-world-specific individuals; "drow" would be important to have as open,
"Drizz't" would not, for example), but I agree that it is significant to
have feats, etc., added to the open game content toolbox.
> I dont
> think anyone would require the setting and flavor
> stuff to be open in the CC, just like no one would
> expect your (or my) module text to be open.
Absolutely agreed. :)
-John Nephew
President, Atlas Games
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
