Hello... Somehow I've missed this list before... Expect to see more from me in the future. Maybe I will be the class clown here, since I tend to nitpick, and am a bit of a constructionist.
One of my biggest gripes is incorrect following of Sec. 6 in the Sec. 15 of the OGL.... I foresee Clark and I going head to head, since we interpret the Sec. 6 bit slightly differently.... En Garde. Now for the heart of this post: Sec. 15 from Dragon has this: Oathbound Copyright 2002, Bastion Press No declaration of OGC, so I'm making an assumption that all text on pp. 47-51 are OGC, and not the rest of the magazine too. Any average juror would see that. I'm doing Oathbound conversion for PCGen. For that, I have a copy of Oathbound at my place for reference, albeit borrowed. The Section 15 has this: Oathbound: Domains of the Forge Copyright 2002, Bastion Press, Inc. Hm... not precisely 'exact text'. Moving on. The article basically has 22 'crunchy' bits (the write-ups for the prestige races themselves, plus the Sculpt Self feat). Looking at Oathbound, these are new Prestige races, as none of them (or even the focuses) are in Oathbound. For those of you who like page references, Oathbound, pp. 61-69. Now, the Sculpt Self feat could, with stretching IMO, be considered a modified 'Evolve' feat from Oathbound, and so wouldn't need it's own entry in the Sec. 15 as new content. I'm hard pressed to see the actual prestige races as modified material. Now, the Sect. 15 of the article has one entry of note, "Oathbound Copyright 2002, Bastion Press" That COULD be considered self reference to the article, though it is a stretch. I can see these scenarios: 1) Pazio Pub. made a mistake. First actual use of the OGL, and the on-line consensus seems to be that the first thing a pub puts out gets slack. Even Wizards (MM2) 2) 'Oathbound' is the name of the article for purposes of the OGL. (and they could have used the ideas from Oathbound via a separate contract, not as OGC.) 3) They think that all the stuff in the article is modified from Oathbound, and so no need to include the article in the Sec. 15. (in which case they still didn't enter the info exactly.) I'd like to know, is this a mistake, or does anyone think they did the Sec. 15 right, and why. Or wrong because of a different reason... Andrew McDougall a.k.a. Tir Gwaith _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
