Re: [Open_Gaming] Conclusion? (for me)

[Gregory Gliedman]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I boil down what I have read thusly: a) Most people believe that the OGL is a great thing. A step in the right direction anyway.   b) Many people think that d20 is a good thing too. 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. d) There are some people who believe that this is not so, that you can create works    which refer to other works and are not neccessarily automatically derived works of    limited rights. e) People will argue over the meaning of each of the phrases in the above, citing    various definitions and laws and exceptions to no end. They will point to the    existence of works in each category as proof of their view. f)  The law is unclear for many examples which could be used to support either   assertion. g) The law is very clear for many examples which could be used to suport either    assertion.   The only sure thing about the derivative works argument is that the law is very unclear.  Courts are notoriously inconsistent in their derivative works analyses even in many areas of expression where there is a large body of existing precedent.  In the world of pen & paper RPG's it's terra nova as far as caselaw goes, which makes any prediction on the point virtually impossible.