Aaron Smalley wrote:
> But would Nicholas' idea about having OGL material in one issue and then
> D20 articles in the next (and thus a separate work) issue as a way
> around this? Rather than through the use of a second and separate
> domain name (this would create a lot of extra work for our technical
> staff, as well as other problems).
I think Ryan's overriding point is that we just don't know yet. We don't know how the
legislatures and the courts will comprehensively interpret copyright law when it comes
to defining a "work" on the Internet. At the very least, we're going to have to wait
for some test cases to proceed.
What I would like to know, however, is whether or not WotC is going to be the one
doing the testing -- and under what circumstances they'd be doing so. In the absence
of an unknown legal standing, I think the OGL becomes substantially crippled when the
only response out of WotC's representative in the OGL community is "we won't sue you
unless we want to; and we won't change the OGL to remove these concerns until someone
has sued".
Another thing which is bugging me here is the WotC is now planning to stop granting
permission for conversion notes (and will, apparently, sue anyone who attempts to
publish conversion notes). Apparently they feel that writing conversion notes under
the OGL, without being able to reference D20 or D&D in anyway, is a suitable
replacement. "Here are some conversion notes for a game I can't name...."
Unreasonable. And yet another example of why I felt that the SRD needs a name.
Justin Bacon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
