From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Michael Thibault Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Ogf-l] Is this possible?
Note: I am not a lawyer. What follows is my opinion of the facts. << But on the Introduction page of the "teaser" I found this statement: "Declaration of Open Content: 100% of this Product is Open Content subject to the Product Identity listed here: "DaemonEye Publishing", "Psionics Companion", >> Two entirely legitimate examples of PI. << alterations to psionic combat, >> I haven't seen the product, but these are very likely NOT eligible for PI. If these alterations use the d20 task resolution mechanic, calculate anything based on d20 stats, or build upon the existing psionic combat rules, then these are likely derivative of OGC, and thus MUST be OGC. << alterations to psion, alterations to psychic warrior, >> These are classes from the Psionics Handbook and contained in the SRD (or the draft)? (Psionics don't intereset me, so I don't own the handbook.) If so, then the alterations most likely derive from the original, and cannot be PI. << Psionic Gifts, all new feats, all new powers, all new items, all new prestige classes, all new organizations. License to use these items can be acquired privately." Is it possible to release a feat or a class (let alone a class that is altered from a pre-existing SRD class) that is for the d20 system as product identity? >> Altered from pre-existing == derivative == OGC. A brand new class entirely? That's a tough one. I can IMAGINE that there is SOME way to create a class that does not in any way build on or incorporate or modify existing rules; but I cannot imagine what it would look like, what good it would be, or why anyone would bother. Most likely << I guess the ultimate proof will be in WotC reaction, but I'm curious about whether or not people think that he's crossed a moral line, or a legal line (or neither, I suppose) with this Declaration of Open Content. >> I think he has definitely crossed a legal line; but since I have no stake in the matter, my legal opinion is moot. A moral line? Hmmm, that's tougher. I have a long-standing position that I won't contradict now (nor debate, so don't even bother trying to engage me): it's not true that "open == moral" and "closed == immoral". Some open extremists will argue that, and I think that muddies the waters quite a bit. So it's not for me to be judging morals here. But this might be a tad on the selfish side, if he's stingy with that private license. Wizards has shared with him a whole system, and in return he can't share those things based on the work Wizards shared? Martin L. Shoemaker Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com http://www.UMLBootCamp.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
