> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> You cannot say (or whoever I was responding to) that the fantasy knowledge
base on which D&D (or any fantasy RPG) rests is entirely the result of
corporate efforts and not mainly the output of the players.
Yes...I can't argue with that, but I have no idea where you're going with
this. It's like saying "guns don't kill people, bullets kill people".
You're right, of course, and I can only assume that this is one of those odd
artifacts of net conversations that twists out of control without either
party knowing how they got there.
In reply to Tim Dugger you said:
> The first paragraph is not something I ignored. In fact I, and a few
others I
think, agree. The second paragraph is where I think we are stumbling. You
assert this to be true and I assert this to be false. If those pieces used
are not just lifted text or other specific protected expression of a game
system, then your work is not necessarily a derivative. <
I agree, it is not necessarily derivative. I simply think that the odds are
better-than-even that it is. One of the tests for derivation is a very
practical one: did you in fact use another work as the basis for yours? I
submit that it would be very hard to write a module or rules supplement
without consulting the PHB, DMG, or MM. Now, just because you do this does
not mean you are creating a derivative work, but it makes it that much
harder to show you didn't. This is because the presumption exists in a case
where you had access to the materials during creation, and that in fact you
used those materials during creation, that the burden of proof shifts to you
to prove that you did not derive from those materials.
The point that many here are trying to make is that it isn't your call to
make, whether a work is derivative or not. Neither party can know if
they're right. Even the lawyers on this list say the law isn't clear
enough. You don't have to believe that, but I do, because I'm not nearly
qualified enough to form my own opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong in
your interpretation, and I am not willing to swear that I am right. I can
only say that both interpretations are pure speculation until a judge rules
on it. This uncertainty, not a fear of lawsuits, is the barrier that has
kept d&d-compatible works out the market.
The OGL removes the uncertainty about derivative works by granting the right
to create derivative works. It is one solution to a very thorny problem.
You are free to find your own, and if it is better for both the copyright
holders and the fan, I suspect Wizards will be interested in it.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
