Anthony Valterra wrote: >>>I too dont see the protectable interest in WP/VP unless >>> > they were copied directly from SW.<< > > Clark is correct. Independent development of a rules system is fine. Filing off the >names and taking the rules directly from our books is not. I know all publishers know >this but you need to watch out for your freelancers who might want to take short cuts. >
Can you be more specific? When you say 'filing off the names', do you mean: a)Taking the full text of the rules (let us say for Wounds/Vitality) and doing, in essence, nothing more than a search&replace (Turn 'Wounds' into 'Life Points' and Vitality into 'Stamina Points'), leaving the rest of the descriptive text effectively 'as is'. b)Rewriting the rules, and the descriptive text, completely, but using the same general mechanics? In the case of the former, I cannot see anyone saying WOTC is in the wrong. Copyright applies very clearly to the expression of rules, and changing a few words does not make a work different -- you can't republish "Lord of the Rings" as a 'new work' by changing "Frodo" to "Joe" and "Mordor" to "Nastyland". In the case of the latter, though...my admittedly limited understanding of copyright law, and its intersection with the OGL/STL, indicates this is legal. On the specific issue involved, the WP/VP system, we even have a statement from Ryan, at the time a WOTC rep, that rewriting the rules but keeping the mechanics would be permissable. I appreciate that you are very busy, and that overseeing the herd of yowling cats which is the OGF list is not your top priority. However, given the flood of mail on this subject, and the evident confusion on the part of both developers and freelancers, a more detailed explanation of present and future policy would be very helpful. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
