>Note that I think this is only true in certain circumstances. It applies if >you build on something in any way, but I think is possible to refer to other >game elements in other ways and not be derivative (such as a spell saying >that a particular game element is not available for a particular situation).
not sure i buy that. you're saying that "[Game Element A] prevents [Game Element B] from functioning" is legal but "[Game Element A] requires you to have [Game Element B]" is not. while i see the distinction on the game-mechanical level, i don't see the distinction on a legal/copyright level. it seems to me that both are equally derivative (or not). now, if [Game Element A] clearly prevents [Game Element B] from functioning, but doesn't actually say so, then i'd say you're in the clear. but the other two examples both reference the external element, while not actually *doing* anything with it (in terms of derivation). -- woodelf <*> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/ If any religion is right, maybe they all have to be right. Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them. --Sinclair _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
