On 21 Aug 02, Infinite scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] Publishing under the OG:
> Right. But what i am trying to point out though is that the parts of D&D
> that were opened as OGC are being privately licensed to other parties with
> no OGC attached. Why can't we do the same thing? We are all using the same
> license right? We are all playing by the same rules?
>
No, we aren't all playing by the same rules. WOTC owns the rights
and is letting you use it for free. Kenzer gets to use it and more
(and their source for what they get to use is NOT the SRD, they
get to use the PHB itself), but they have to pay for it in some
manner...
I am not sure that I can explain it any better than I have already
tried. I know that I understand it, but trying to explain it is a little
more difficult...
> Perhaps if you could let me know if there is a difference between the
> stuff I release as OGC and the stuff that wizards releases as OGC?
That one is simple, your stuff is derivative....
Now, I do want to point out that if you do NOT release your whole
setting as OGC, and keep all but what is required as PI, then you
could take and sell that setting to another company if you want, or
license it out to others.
I am also trying to point out that Anthony's answer to that question
was based around the example given, which placed the entire work
under the OGL, not just the crunchy bits. there is a MAJOR
difference when you do that....
**TANSTAAFL**
Rasyr (Tim Dugger)
System Editor
Iron Crown Enterprises
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
