4e D&D GSL Live

[jmucchiello]

Clause 11.1: Immediate termination of the license would be my guess.

But they could also do that if you book includes words like "the" so I somehow expected the "fantasy"-ness of this license to be spelled out.

 

[DanMcS]

I have to ask -- were there a lot of publishers who really worried about that? I'm not a publisher, so I guess worrying about my new snazzy game mechanic getting parroted across the entire gaming community I would consider a plus, not a minus. I don't see why I'd be worried about product identity, because the publisher controls how much of his material is open content through the PI description, anyway. In fact, I consider it one of the two big keystones of the OGL archway.

But the real question -- was this something a lot of publishers spoke about negatively?

Phil Reed posted on this board about this, that since he was an electronic publisher, this worried him a good bit, that people ripping and republishing his open content for free would totally replace his products and drive him straight out of business.

And Wulf, I seem to remember you once posting against people creating a "SRD" of your products, because you considered yourself a rules guy, and so basically your whole products were open content rules.

 

[see]

Anybody see any PHB II content in the SRD? Remember, that was the reason given us last week as to why they missed the "early next week" deadline.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

And Wulf, I seem to remember you once posting against people creating a "SRD" of your products, because you considered yourself a rules guy, and so basically your whole products were open content rules.

I've never agitated for a more restrictive license, but I have certainly advocated responsible use of the permissions it grants.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

You apparently could not call your new elf race an "elf", since that would mean you were redefining an elf. You probably shouldn't, even if you could, you'd just confuse people trying to use your product, who'd see "race: elf" and wonder where these weird racial abilities came from. You could call it a "myworld elf" and go hog-wild.
Saying there are no clerics in your setting, or anything with a divine power source, for that matter, isn't "redefining" anything. Doesn't seem like that would be a problem.

Yes, but could you create a new Cleric based on your settings fluff?

 

[Shroomy]

Yes, but could you create a new Cleric based on your settings fluff?

Sure, but don't call it a cleric, or favored soul, or anything you think will be remotely used by WoTC in a future product. In fact, try to link as much of you can to proper nouns out of your own IP.

 

[webrunner]

My concern is that:
1) the is SRD not usable as a reference
AND
2) it forbids creating a reference using the SRD (since you can only put in references to the books)
AND
3) Apparenty the compendium will also not include actual content but references to content

that a searchable, web-formatted reference tool for, say, powers, is never going to legally happen.

 

[Shroomy]

My concern is that:
1) the is SRD not usable as a reference
AND
2) it forbids creating a reference using the SRD (since you can only put in references to the books)
AND
3) Apparenty the compendium will also not include actual content but references to content

that a searchable, web-formatted reference tool for, say, powers, is never going to legally happen.

Nope, not outside the DDI. At least, not legally.

 

[Admiral Caine]

I am curious as to what Mr. Clark Peterson's comment will be.

 

[DanMcS]

Yes, but could you create a new Cleric based on your settings fluff?

The parallel between "elf" and "cleric" in these examples should be pretty clear. No, you can't create a new cleric class, you'd be redefining a term from the SRD.