At 02:57 PM 2/13/02 -0700, Alec A. Burkhardt wrote: >Yes, but the stat block is simply text reprinted from CC, it's just not >the entirety of the monster entry. That's not derivative as the term is >normally used on this list. That's why I'd avoid the term and be more >specific that he is taking material directly from those books.
Remember, I actually agreed that it was a poor choice of words. I do still think that "derive" is correct (not right or good, but correct), but I also don't think it matters much. The take-home lesson is that you're right about it being a bad phrase. The rest is pointless semantics. :-) >I'd have to double check the specific language, but it was clear from >comments from both Clark & Steve that the intent of the license to use PI >from RR was to allow people to use the specific name in RR with the >specific item/spell from RR. I'm sure that's the case. You just caught me off-guard because I'd been reading that license very recently, and didn't remember that part. Considering how little sleep I've been getting lately, perhaps that's none too surprising. >There was no double negative in my post. There were two separate single >negatives. Don't know where your getting the idea that I said the quoted >material, since I never did. There's two negatives in my statement, but >they don't actually create a double negative. True. I was a loose with my language, and I apologize. What you originally said was: >This content is designated as Product Identity except for that material >listed after the item which is noted as Open Game Content. When I said "double negative," what I meant was this: There is a statement of OGC above this paragraph. You're making a broad exception to that here, and then listing below it specific exceptions to the broad exception. Now that I know a little more about how the OGC declarations worked in CC (which I didn't at the time), your reasons for doing this are a little more clear to me. But it was this contradiction of the contradiction that I was referring to. In an editorial sense, I still think that either rewording your sentence above or constructing the declaration with only one layer of exceptions would be more clear to the reader. But, as you say, it might be the case that this is the best way to achieve the necessary legal outcome. Maybe the paragraph could be reworded like this: >X: The following listed content is taken from publications of Sword & >Sorcery Studios (Creature Collection, Creature Collection 2: Dark >Menagerie, and Relics & Rituals), and used with here specific permission. >The only parts of these items designated as Open Game Content are listed >below; all other material pertaining to these items is designated as the >Product Identity of Sword & Sorcery Studios. >Monster 1: the stat block and any game rules pertaining to Monster 1 >Spell 1: any game rules pertaining to Spell 1 Sixten _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
