[Open_Gaming] Reply to Brad

[Githianki]

Hi,        >Yes, Wizards is using d20 to protect the D&D brand, AND the Forgotten Realms brand AND the Greyhawk brand.� They are also using it to protect the Dune brand, the Call of Cthulu brand, the Star Wars brand, and others.� By granting free access to all these brands and creating a generic term to link them, they give fans access to them without compromising their valuable intellectual property.� They simply aren't sharing those things that are most clearly defined by copyright law as protectable, and that they have spent considerable time, money, and creative effort building into the properties you want free access to.� I can't call that greedy.� Would you rather they offered a licensing fee to use these brands INSTEAD of the OGL? I sure wouldn't.� Because then it truly would be designed strictly for the commercial market, rather than as a vehicle for both the fan and the business to participate in the Wizards' RPG market segment. < I understand what you are saying but...I am not talking about free access to those brands/settings (which they are not granting I think).  I assume that people would get permission for any brand use they wanted to do.  I am talking about creation of your own works, which are compatible with the system(s).  Nor do I think that much of what comprises the fantasy genre of D& D(in the general sense) is a result of "considerable time, money, and creative effort" on the part of companies. Sure putting together products based on the genre requires those things, but the ideas are the products of the users of the system.  If a creation is the specific result of work product and legally protectable then so be it, I fully support that.   I support the OGL and d20 ideas but I don't subscribe to the idea the we should have no access to the underlying ideas of D&D (or other generic genres) for use in products for profit without the use of the OGL.  Nor do I feel that formating such ideas in a manner that would allow a person to use those ideas with that system or any other shouldn't be able to do so. I am not familiar with net-books (minority I guess) so I don't know what they are doing.  The somewhat greedy was not in reference to money but the idea ownership that seems to be implied in the thinking behind the OGL. >You cannot extrapolate those rights granted to purchasers of a product forward to the creation of new works for distribution.� Different rules apply, so the fact that Wizards encourages the creation of derivative works does NOT mean they encourage the distribution of those works.< My argument doesn't rely on extrapolation but where does it say that the "derivative" material is for home use only? In fact most products I can think of where that is the case, have specific clauses notices to that effect. This leads me to ask why can't you extrapolate in this specific case (if not in the general sense)?  I used this before and it was dismissed but I raise it again.  If I buy a paint by the numbers dog and painting guide and I paint the dog, I could sell it unless the product said specifically that I couldn't. Or substitute miniatures.  Or a module which might have substantially more creative effort in it (Again assume that I used noone else's settings/brands). Anyway, we shall see in the coming year I guess. -Alex Silva