Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="madelf" data-source="post: 2810438" data-attributes="member: 15415">No need to get tetchy... I'm just qualifying my statements so folks hopefully don't get the idea that there's some sort of carte blanche in either situation.In both cases it's legal (if it's done properly), and in both cases you could get sued (if the publisher decided that you didn't change things enough to suit them). They really aren't any different, and that's the point I'm trying to make. There is absolutely no legal difference, because (based on the wording, not Wulf's intent - which I have no magical way of determining, but which seems to be "you can use the mechanics, but I better not catch you using any of my writing") the thing that has been released as open content is something that cannot be protected by copyright in the first place. The situation is the same, and the ambiguity is the same. The only thing that is not the same is the intent. Wulf intends his mechanics to be re-used, while the Ars Magica guys likely don't intend for their mechanics to be re-used (even if they can't really prevent it under copyright).There is no (legal) double standard in anything I've been saying (though it could be argued that there's an ethical question in adapting Ars Magica mechanics which isn't present in adapting Grim Tales mechanics).It's not quite as simple as that. You actually can refer to someone's trademark, and even claim compatibility with their product, so long as it's done properly. The exact mechanisms are at least as complex as copyright (and I'm not well enough aquainted with the details to expound on them), but the general idea is that the customer should not be able to mistake your product for the other company's.</blockquote>

Verification