>On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Marc Tassin, Ilium Software wrote: > > John Kim wrote: >>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Marc Tassin, Ilium Software wrote: >>>> Write something new. Now I know this sounds crazy, but ALL the >>>> arguments going on are based on the problems inherent in trying >>>> to write something that uses stuff someone ELSE made up. >>> >>> Um, hello? Isn't using other people's ideas for free the whole point >> of open gaming? Shared content and all that? >> >> My grudge is that the point is NOT "how to use the things that AREN'T >> marked as open" and that seems to be what everyone is arguing about. >> How to "walk the line" and use things that aren't clearly defined as >> "open" materials. > > Where do you see that? The recent spate of discussion as I >see it is over clearly marked open content such as the Mind Flayer >entry or Hobgoblin entry in the SRD. These are clearly defined as >open material. However, there is a huge can of worms over how >you can use that open material. > > Therein lies the problem. By using the open material at all, >you are forced to walk a line between the open-content SRD entry and >the closed-content description and illustration. In fact, there is >a host of closed-content material from WotC and others which surrounds >nearly all of the open SRD content.
enough of a tight-rope act that the one potentially-D20 project i have in mind may not be a D20 project after all. i may just go the "normal" route, and trust that my understanding of what, exactly, constitutes "derivative" is right (and WotC's position is wrong). since i sincerely believe that i'm in the clear with normal copyright (and i've been carefully searching for trademarks that i need to excise), it's a lot easier than the mix of that and OGC, and the extra restrictions of the WotC OGL and D20STL. and since there's no money on the line, i've got nothing to lose should they decide to pursue me and be proven right. in a case like mine, where i want to take some basic concepts and expand upon them hugely, but those basic concepts are setting, not rules, it doesn't look like the D20SRD does me any good. [for the curious: i want to do a fantasy space setting using the "physics" of Spelljammer, and a few proper nouns (creature names, not "Spelljammer" or anything of the sort), but very little else. i go back and forth on whether there is room to do it legally, with or without the WotC OGL and/or the D20STL. zero "rules" content. little-to-no reuse of existing SJ stuff (basically, i really like the basic idea, but think that the execution was pretty poor, so i want to redo it almost from the ground up). > The problem is that WotC is producing and maintaining closed >content in the exact same arena that the open content is. If they >had said from the start that monsters were closed and everyone had to >invent their own, there wouldn't be any question and I think that >open development would be better off in many ways. > >- John > > >_______________________________________________ >Ogf-l mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l -- 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
