So has the D20 STL been officially revoked?

[Orcus]

“Hey, did you hear the one about WotC not following their own license to the letter?”

As you probably know, Wizards has a terrible record of actually using the OGL. Their main attempt at the end of the MM2 to include a few monsters from the Creature Collection was hillarious. They totally botched complying with their own license. It was the source of some humor at the time. If you havent seen it, go check out their use of open content in the MM2 and see if you can find all the violations. They did a worse job than any of the d20 publishers. (and some could argue they also violated the d20 STL, but I would counter that though they were using the d20 logo they werent using it per the d20 STL so werent in violation, but its still fun to check it out).

Thought you might get a kick out of that.

 

[glass]

Gonna have to respectfully disagree with you on that one. Whether or not PI is OGC is not little license minutia. Which, of course, is why "many of the top businessmen" were debating it. Because it matters.

May I ask, why does it matter?

(Assuming you can explain it without giving me a full legal education ).


glass.

 

[kenmarable]

Gonna have to respectfully disagree with you on that one. Whether or not PI is OGC is not little license minutia. Which, of course, is why "many of the top businessmen" were debating it. Because it matters.

Fair enough. I was always in the camp of "just use open content and closed content, and don't bother with PI if it's confusing", and those debates went on longer than my concern over the issue. But I can understand how it could impact some publishers. My main point was that what is little license minutia to one person can really matter to someone else.

As you probably know, Wizards has a terrible record of actually using the OGL. Their main attempt at the end of the MM2 to include a few monsters from the Creature Collection was hillarious. They totally botched complying with their own license. It was the source of some humor at the time. If you havent seen it, go check out their use of open content in the MM2 and see if you can find all the violations. They did a worse job than any of the d20 publishers. (and some could argue they also violated the d20 STL, but I would counter that though they were using the d20 logo they werent using it per the d20 STL so werent in violation, but its still fun to check it out).

Thought you might get a kick out of that.

Yeah, I remember that. It was hard to even give them an A for effort. I know they blew the Section 15 pretty severely. Digging it out... hmm... did they get permission to claim compatibility from you? Because that's in there. I suppose "game text" is one of those designations that can be clear or vague depending on your mood. Creature Collection was one of the "names are closed content, but can be licensed" books, right? Not sure if they changed their names but from the time I seem to recall that they did (have to fess up, I have the Tome of Horrors, but not the Creature Collections, much to my shame and regret). But for a really very simple license with a metric ton of complying products to use as examples, it's embarrassing that WotC did so poorly with MM2.

At least they did a bit better with Unearthed Arcana. I suppose when the 800 lb gorilla is rightfully mocked by the little monkeys nearby, they can learn.