"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[isidorus]

Berandor
All I can say is that wizard's reaction shows a perspective on free enterprise that seems to shared by many of today's "global players", namely an utter disregard for its competitors as well as for its consumers, the latter being reduced to automatons trained to buy whatever product sports their trademark. The new license, if applied (now or in the future) can harm more than just AV, might even force small publishers out of business - and not because of inferior product.

As an author myself, I want to write about what I want to write about. If the public doesn't like what I write, fine. But if someone wants to dictate me what to write, I get pricky.

This almost says it all for me, I write and and design sometimes. No d20 since daemonforge, a long time ago. Now been writing for La and I have to say this license change makes me nervous. The evil priest thing I am writing for La and was going to do d20 version would fall under this new license, what am I saying the descriptions in my homebrew would fall under it.

Not going to do it anymore and wonder how this cange helps them one bit. Defintely cannot trust corparations the bottom line profit is all that matters.

I wonder though and maybe someone can answer, how does this effect fan sites with the same kind of content?

I understand your ideas of protecting your trademark, but after reading all this, it is just hypocrisy and total disregard of freedom of speech.

I am wondering when you guys are going to go to congress and get yourself a law like the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). that way you can issue supenoas just like the RIAA.

Jeez and to think I was going to take money out of my savings to buy the new 3.5 corebooks; even though I am laid-off. Not anymore though.

 

[d4]

i find it a bit amazing that WOTC (through Andy) says that all those pictures fall well within the bounds of "decency" proposed in the new standards when one of them shows an eviscerated, mauled Santa Claus with an exposed rib cage.

 

[Harlock]

This almost says it all for me, I write and and design sometimes. No d20 since daemonforge, a long time ago. Now been writing for La and I have to say this license change makes me nervous. The evil priest thing I am writing for La and was going to do d20 version would fall under this new license, what am I saying the descriptions in my homebrew would fall under it.

Not going to do it anymore and wonder how this cange helps them one bit. Defintely cannot trust corparations the bottom line profit is all that matters.

I wonder though and maybe someone can answer, how does this effect fan sites with the same kind of content?

I understand your ideas of protecting your trademark, but after reading all this, it is just hypocrisy and total disregard of freedom of speech.

I am wondering when you guys are going to go to congress and get yourself a law like the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). that way you can issue supenoas just like the RIAA.

Jeez and to think I was going to take money out of my savings to buy the new 3.5 corebooks; even though I am laid-off. Not anymore though.

Another writer who says this means they cannot continue with Project X. Is the OGL unusable for your project somehow? You're one of several people who has come out and said this is a disregard for freedom of speech but really, is it? Does freedom of speech extend to you using someone else's trademarks for your profit? I don't think it does or else MAD magazine would not have to satirize TM titles. Also, consider privately owned IRC servers where freedom of speech ends where the server owner says it does. It is his server, his rules, and he has a right to allow anyone or ban anyone he wishes for any reason. I'm sure this is apples and oranges, however, but still, can't you publish D&D compatible material under the OGL?

 

[alaric]

(Snipped from Mousferatu's quote)

[for humans and human-like creatures] gratuitous nudity, the depiction of genitalia, bare female nipples, and sexual or bathroom activity is not acceptable

Pretty straight forward, no sex or naked people (or things close to people). The main complaint I'm seeing is about showing nipples. I know that doesn't offend a lot of you, but we have to draw a line somewhere for what is and isn't nudity.

That seems to make it pretty clear that Mongoose is currently in breach of the 5.0 version of the license (or is that just a guideline and wizards can choose to hold them in breach or not?) because some (most? all?) of their books have a single topless image in them. What does this mean for mongoose? Are their current selection of Quintessential books going to get pulled? republished without nipples? or is wizards just using this license for new books?

 

[isidorus]

Another writer who says this means they cannot continue with Project X. Is the OGL unusable for your project somehow? You're one of several people who has come out and said this is a disregard for freedom of speech but really, is it? Does freedom of speech extend to you using someone else's trademarks for your profit? I don't think it does or else MAD magazine would not have to satirize TM titles. Also, consider privately owned IRC servers where freedom of speech ends where the server owner says it does. It is his server, his rules, and he has a right to allow anyone or ban anyone he wishes for any reason. I'm sure this is apples and oranges, however, but still, can't you publish D&D compatible material under the OGL?

Yes I could, I agree about IRC been there alot and seen people thrown off. But I would never write under the d20 and right now do not think I will release under OGL. Maybe my freedom of speech thing went to far, but trademarks and licenses are a little different are not. I am not sure since I am not a lawyer.

I think it is the tip of the iceberg though. I am wondering if they will invoke the DMCA for programs or websites if they do not like it.

 

[Baastet]

Ah Ha!

That seems to make it pretty clear that Mongoose is currently in breach of the 5.0 version of the license (or is that just a guideline and wizards can choose to hold them in breach or not?) because some (most? all?) of their books have a single topless image in them. What does this mean for mongoose? Are their current selection of Quintessential books going to get pulled? republished without nipples? or is wizards just using this license for new books?

Must go..... run.....Must buy all nipple copies of books before they become nippleless!!

Baastet

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Must go..... run.....Must buy all nipple copies of books before they become nippleless!!

Baastet

sad but true their going to be collectors items in a few years like the old 1st edition Deities Demigods...

 

[Largomad]

Whatever brought Wizards to act in this way, AV's book has recieved an unexpected boost in the game comunity making the need to advertise his product as "requires the use ..." pointless.

My 'sixth sense' hints that at the end BoEF will only benefit for this unexpected controversy which is in fact very ironic

Isn't it?

Just my two cents...

 

[Largomad]

Edit: Duplicate post, sorry.

 

[Wycen]

I've certainly never heard of WotC demanding any books destroyed

Just this year they forced Fast Forward Entertainment to destroy several books for d20 license violations, (usually stemming from using the name Drawmij).