I am not a lawyer, etc., etc., etc... To qualify myself, I've been on this list for over two years, and following the posting to it since some time before that. While I cannot claim to be an expert, I have tried to put forth some solid products; some free some for sale, in the span of the last year. One of the cautions I have proceeded under was to try and remain objective when I have approached the licenses. I think that it is very important to take them seriously. I also believe that this d20 movement and the community it has spawned have been (extremely well) self-policed and I value being thought of as one who keeps the spirit of that approach. That said...
Fraser Ronald wrote - "Ah well. I think I'll just let it go. If requested, I'll remove it. I mean, if they want to sue, that's fine. I've got some pocket-lint they're welcome to." I do not believe that this embraces the same spirit and approach of most members of this community. I think you would be wise to rethink this approach. Ryan Dancey wrote - "Prior to the advent of the OGL, all the major publishers took it as an article of understood law that anyone seeking to publish any content that was a derivative work based on their games needed their advance permission." In my opinion the article in question crosses the line between journalism and product, and I believe that is at the heart of the matter. Having read the article, it would appear that it borrows ideas from one protected work and seeks to advise on how to apply that material into the current d20 system. To my mind this moves beyond commentary (or journalism) and into application, and thereby product. Fraser Ronald wrote - "While there is some game information in it, the article doesn't actually have any rules, merely commentary." It not only has rules, they are not yours to publish. Further, you seek in the article to show how to apply those rules to the d20 System. This is not commentary on the quality or presentation of a single set of rules; it is conversion and application of one set of rules to another. Clearly, that makes this article a product. Fraser Ronald wrote - I've spoken with some people who have said that there is no more in this article than in a review article. I think I may have been a bit paranoid." I believe you may be listening only to particular parties because they are saying what is most convenient to you. Be careful whose advice you hold most closely, no one will be affected by the consequences but yourself and possibly the author of the article. Fraser Ronald wrote - "While d20 and 3E are mentioned, and there is some commentary that refers to rules and such, nothing is really discussed in any greater depth than an average review article." This is not true. I will try to point out some of the more glaring examples. The blurb about the article (by Chris Marlowe) - "Do you remember 2E Skills and Powers, with its traits, disadvantages, kits and subabilities? Chris Marlowe looks at using subabilities from Skills and Powers in a d20 campaign." This suggests application and conversion of rules for which you do not have the rights to publish into a rules set where the publishing rights, while opened under the licenses, are restricted and clearly defined. >From the article - "Applying subabilities in d20 also means applying the subabilities >to the skills. For example, (etc.)" This is not merely commentary on the quality of S&P but advice on how to port that material in another system. That is conversion, and therefore product. >From the article - "When considering a skill like Escape Artist, I look at the actual >description of the subability. So, for the Dexterity subabilities, Aim is supposed >(etc.)" Again, not commentary but game rules advice and instruction. >From the article - "So, that's a quick overview of how I've taken subabilities from >S&P and transferred them into my d20 campaign." Clearly Mr. Marlowe is summing up game rules conversion. >From the article - ..."it adds a lot to both character creation and the use of >skills, feats and magic." Furthermore, any rules oriented material that violates the sacred cow of character creation is going to draw more than a passing interest from WotC. There's much more to the article, and many more passages that could be quoted (which is saying a lot for such a short article), but I felt these illustrated the problems clearly enough. What you are claiming is a review, is not even label as a review although placed in your table of contents under several other reviews. I do not think that you are approaching this objectively and perhaps should take a harder look at what you are doing. Please understand that I hold nothing against you personally. In fact, I wish you well and much success just as I do everyone making an effort in this industry. That's all from me. Three posts to these lists in over two years are wearing me out! ;-) As always, Mark _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
