>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>c) There are some who believe that any reference whatsoever to another
>person's
> work in your work automatically makes your work a derived work of
>limited
>rights.
Qualifier: Not "any reference whatsoever", but "any significant reference."
In a nutshell (IMO): If you use a system's rules, you're derivitive of that
system. (Of course, if you only take a few rules--like, ability scores from
3-18 for human average--you're probably not. But, this is a grey area...
and it's best to er on the side of not getting sued. :) )
>Personally, I side with Clark in the practical outlook that the OGL is here
>now, is fair, seems to work, and there isn't much else to choose from.
FYI: There are at least two other "open gaming" licenses listed on the OGF
web site.
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/licenses.html
>BUT,
>I have to disagree with the sometimes dogmatic view of some posters that an
>otherwise original work is somehow derivative of a game system just because
>the work is compatible with that system. I speak primarily of adventures
>but
>campaign settings, monster books, etc. are all within the scope of what I
>mean by work. If the law is unclear don't claim it is clear.
I don't think anyone's claimed that the *law* is clear--rather, the
*industry policy* is what's clear.
If someone with real deep pockets decided to take this to court, I wouldn't
be surprised if the Judge took the industry standard into account.
OK, I think we can move on to happier topics now. :)
DM
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
