Martin- I dont know if you saw the thread on ENWorld about this product, but the guy who made it had absolutely no clue about d20/OGL issues. Supposedly he has redone his product. But even so, that product is probably a bad product to use as a PI designation example--unless you were looking for an example of a bad example :)
I agree with your observations (also without having seen the product) that, if your representations are correct, the various derived content cannot be PI. Clark As an aside: > 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? >> The whole class? No, as a general rule. The class name, sure. But the mechanics, no. UNLESS it was not derived from the SRD in any way, which is hard to imagine. > I think he has definitely crossed a legal line; but > since I have no > stake in the matter, my legal opinion is moot. No it isnt. This is a discussion list and you are a long standing member. Your opinion is always welcome. > it's not true that "open == moral" and > "closed == immoral". Agreed. > 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? There is a third option between moral and immoral, which, given this particular product and the information on ENWorld: uninformed. It might be that, as seems clear from the ENWorld thread, that the guy just doesnt know what the hell he is doing. [no need for me to sign again :) ] ===== http://www.necromancergames.com "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel" _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
