Search results

Agreed.

My bad. I thought both licenses said "intellectual property", not just the GSL. "Intellectual property" is also used in copyright law, while "product identity" is used in trademark law.

The correct term in the U.S. is 'IP' for 'Intellectual Property', not 'PI' for 'Product Identity' or 'Propriedade Intelectual'[/nitpick] RangerREG is correct. Angellis ater may also be correct, so long as no IP is involved. If there is no IP involved, then there's nothing the True20 staff can...

LOL. You're so silly. Who can top that? Adios. I shall shed a tear ...

Your "question" is c0cked and loaded. I thought I might try to pull the point out from between the lines of your "question", but I can't be certain about the point to why you asked the question. So what I'm going to do is just clarify the difference between the OGL and the GSL regarding people's...

Please stop making inferences from my words that I never even implied. My choices are not a part of this discussion. This discussion is about WOTC, not me. If you have a point to make, I suggest you do it without directing it at me personally.

I just figured it was a spelling error. Though I can't think what the word is supposed to be. Maybe they wrote the GSL at a drinking party. :P

You're changing what I made the statement in regard to. If you want to give back-up to dmccoy's theory that the 5e license is going to be even more restrictive than the 4e, then you would be on the right track, but that's not what you're saying here, so you've completely missed the point of what...

Granted. Allow me to clarify what I mean by "speculative". I mean that there are no sufficient grounds for the speculation. I could use the word "specious" instead, but I figure that would be offensive.

That makes sense.

dmccoy: I was thinking about something I said earlier and I realized that there's a big difference between the input I've given on the game in the forums and what a playtester might be able to give. My suggestions were more general and easy to say that what I suggested was applied, but for...

I know that. But I wasn't talking about simple compatibility. I was talking about how now licensees (GSL) and their customers must depend on the D&D books. It's more than just compatibility. I seriously doubt it was his rejection alone. If you have something to support that statement, I'll...

Yeah, you keep saying that, and I keep correcting you. See the thing is that you're coming from the view that if one thing in the GSL is bad, then it's all bad. I am coming from the view that good parts and bad parts can coexist in the same document. But here's the kicker: I recognize that it...

I never said it was a good thing as it stands. I said it would be good if and when section 2, and subsections 6.1, 11.1, and 11.3 are rewritten to protect the licensee. Anyway, this discussion isn't about whether the GSL is good or bad. It's about WOTC's motives with the GSL. Content sharing is...

By saying I was interested in what else you have to offer on the subject, I was trying to relate my willingness to adjust my viewpoint in light of further information. By stating that it was based on concrete evidence, I mean only to state that it's the strongest evidence available to me at this...

I made no optimistic statement. I made a conditional statement. "Depends on" is a conditional. I beg to differ. There was simply internal debate over the wording of the license and tabling it was discussed. (I was keeping up with the lead up to 4e's release and all the stuff about the GSL, so...

Thanks for the SRD info. That's what I thought and what I spoke from, but couldn't confirm it. I'll consider your knowledge a verification. I don't think the logo is the only attractive thing. For the same reason that the logo is attractive, so too is its focus on WOTC's other IP. It's...

From that perspective, I agree. Personally, I think the fact that few have provided such SRD's shows a lack of confidence in the use of SRD for their product to this day and thus shows that WOTC may actually prefer not to give out information so readily as they did with the original d20 SRD did...

Here's a page of SRD's. Even Paizo is planning a Pathfinder SRD when the full system becomes available. The claim that there are few doesn't seem to hold up.

I didn't fully understand it in the context, so maybe it's not as clear as you think. My first thought was that you meant SRD's for entirely different systems (taking the "varied" aspect in the broadest sense). "Variant d20 SRD" would be a lot clearer.