Another Immortals Handbook thread

[Alzrius]

No. Game-rules compatibility as such does not equal derivative work or any other kind of copyright infringement.

From what I understand, this isn't true (though I could be wrong); the major example of I can think of here is that TSR sued Mayfair Games into oblivion over their Role Aids line of D&D-compatible products.

& NOBODY _needs_ to use the d20 license unless they are putting the d20 trademark on their release. However there is no need to worry about any of this anyway as the IH uses the OGL!

I did say "at least the OGL." That said, while it is good that nothing in the IH is violating any part of the basic OGL (and isn't using the d20 License, so it avoids that fiasco), I would still really like to see the aforementioned portions of it made OGC.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Another word on Monte and crippled content: I took a quick glance at the declarations in the Complete Book of Eldritch Might and it looks like he's reversed his stance on spell names. I didn't read as thouroughly as I would have liked, though, because I need to go tutor a co-worker and then work all day - pressed for time and all that.

Which policy did he reverse? The initial one policy of posting crippled content, or the relaxed policy seen in Legacy of Dragons? Have the spells in the Complete Book of Eldritch Might have been crippled or not?

Oh, and to return more to the topic of the thread...

When will the Bestiary be available on RPG Now?

 

[S'mon]

From what I understand, this isn't true (though I could be wrong); the major example of I can think of here is that TSR sued Mayfair Games into oblivion over their Role Aids line of D&D-compatible products.
.

If you can point me to a case where a judge actually found in TSR's favour, I'd be interested to read it. My impression is that you can "sue someone into oblivion" without legally having a leg to stand on, if you have money to spend on lawyers and the other side feels forced to do the same & can't afford the cost.

 

[Alzrius]

If you can point me to a case where a judge actually found in TSR's favour, I'd be interested to read it.

To be fair, I looked on the page that summarized the agreement between TSR and Mayfair, and the court ruling was specifically where the agreement was violated. As it turns out, that wasn't the death of Mayfair Games, though it did help prior to TSR buying their Role Aids line out.

However, it does hold an untested case where Companion Games' Far Side line was made compatible with Star Fleet Battles; while I'm not sure who published the latter game, they did hold that the former was compatible illegally with their design.

To be fair though, the Allen case is the only court ruling on this matter (e.g. for games) directly, but it doesn't seem to be completely iron-clad.

Here's the TSR vs Mayfair Games case: http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_mayfair.html

 

[CRGreathouse]

No. Game-rules compatibility as such does not equal derivative work or any other kind of copyright infringement. & NOBODY _needs_ to use the d20 license unless they are putting the d20 trademark on their release. However there is no need to worry about any of this anyway as the IH uses the OGL!

This only works, of course, if you follow section 8. I didn't see the declaration.

 

[S'mon]

Here's the TSR vs Mayfair Games case: http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_mayfair.html

Interesting case to read - it rests entirely on TM infringement & breach of contract issues, it doesn't say anything about copyright infringement. The moral of it seems to be "never sign a contract with T$R"

 

[S'mon]

This only works, of course, if you follow section 8. I didn't see the declaration.

Am I right it needs to say somewhere "Designation of Open Game Content: All material derived from the d20 System Rules Document is Open Game Content. Designation of Product Identity: All material not derived from the d20 System Rules Document is Product Identity. All rights reserved."? Would that be ok?

 

[Verequus]

Am I right it needs to say somewhere "Designation of Open Game Content: All material derived from the d20 System Rules Document is Open Game Content. Designation of Product Identity: All material not derived from the d20 System Rules Document is Product Identity. All rights reserved."? Would that be ok?

AFAIK, doesn't the OGL require a clear designation of OGC? Something like that doesn't answer the question "What can I reuse?". A nice example of a clear designation is, when you can ask a child to mark the OGC and you get a usable result.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I've seen designations that use wording like what S'mon describes, but that is not an ideal I would shoot for. What UK says in post 134 is much better.

 

[S'mon]

AFAIK, doesn't the OGL require a clear designation of OGC? Something like that doesn't answer the question "What can I reuse?". A nice example of a clear designation is, when you can ask a child to mark the OGC and you get a usable result.

I don't see how that's workable. And a child is not the relevant target audience, surely. AFAICS the important point to get across is that the current release does not _add_ any OGC.