On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 09:56:21AM -0600, woodelf wrote:
>
> Bryant, Martin:
> Either i misread Ryan, or you misread me. I took him to be referring
> to how the RPG industry operated, not how the law operated. I
> assumed by "major publishers" he meant "major RPG publishers" (due to
> both the forum and the "...based on their games"). I *thought* Ryan
> was saying that, prior to the WotC OGL, game publishers expected
> advance notice/permission for any derivative works, and my question
> is, did they even expect that articles in game magazines required the
> permission of the game owner? [besides Palladium--i know about
> them.] My question has nothing to do with law, and everything to do
> with how people and companies behaved.
Right; I slightly misread you and slightly abused your post to make my
point. My bad. I think you're right about the importance of the
distinction. I think Ryan is right when it comes to published
supplements, and I suspect he is incorrect when it comes to magazines.
I know he's incorrect when it comes to the lower end of the market
(i.e., fanzines and APAs), since I was never "corrected" during my brief
time in A&E, despite producing what he characterizes as derivate works.
--
Bryant Durrell [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell [] 9/11/2001
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
"Channeling is just bad ventriloquism. You use another voice,
but people can see your lips moving." -- Penn Jillette
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
