Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5511855" data-attributes="member: 957">It may not have been the perfect choice of words, but the point of what I said stands.The D20 SRD is just that, the D20 SRD. OSIRIC clearly DOES use the SRD as establishing as &quot;open&quot; certain elements in it that (and don't take this as legal speak, I make no claims) could be called &quot;art&quot; and are associated with multiple editions.&nbsp; The fact that they are in the SRD makes them &quot;open&quot; and OSIRIC can and does point to that.But the heart of OSIRIC is, obviously, a completely different rule system than the D20 SRD provides for.&nbsp; And there is no evidence that the intent of it was to be leveraged into &quot;opening&quot; prior editions. Pathfinder &quot;uses&quot; the SRD to build the game on it.&nbsp; OSIRIC &quot;uses&quot; the SRD as a lever to go a significantly different direction.&nbsp; Yes, my choice of word was poor.&nbsp; But I think a reasonable consideration could see what I meant.And again, I'm not arguing that there is anything wrong with OSIRIC.&nbsp; I recall reading some of his comments on exactly this topic.&nbsp; Certainly I have no idea if I read 5% of what he said or 95%.&nbsp; But the idea that 3E was SUPPOSED to be open *forever and ever amen* was clear and the idea that 1E was not seemed clear to me.&nbsp; I think that IS a moral opinion.&nbsp; BUT the unjust interpretation being applied now is that the *forever and ever amen* part was supposed to just mean &quot;until we release another edition&quot;.&nbsp; I never saw him say anything to in any way imply that.&nbsp; Did I miss it?&nbsp; If so, I'll readily admit I'm wrong.&nbsp; But I don't think I did.As a purely moral position he is still being consistent.Again, no intent whatsoever to speak for or put words into Clark's mouth.&nbsp; These are my memories and interpretations.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5511855, member: 957"] It may not have been the perfect choice of words, but the point of what I said stands. The D20 SRD is just that, the D20 SRD. OSIRIC clearly DOES use the SRD as establishing as "open" certain elements in it that (and don't take this as legal speak, I make no claims) could be called "art" and are associated with multiple editions. The fact that they are in the SRD makes them "open" and OSIRIC can and does point to that. But the heart of OSIRIC is, obviously, a completely different rule system than the D20 SRD provides for. And there is no evidence that the intent of it was to be leveraged into "opening" prior editions. Pathfinder "uses" the SRD to build the game on it. OSIRIC "uses" the SRD as a lever to go a significantly different direction. Yes, my choice of word was poor. But I think a reasonable consideration could see what I meant. And again, I'm not arguing that there is anything wrong with OSIRIC. I recall reading some of his comments on exactly this topic. Certainly I have no idea if I read 5% of what he said or 95%. But the idea that 3E was SUPPOSED to be open *forever and ever amen* was clear and the idea that 1E was not seemed clear to me. I think that IS a moral opinion. BUT the unjust interpretation being applied now is that the *forever and ever amen* part was supposed to just mean "until we release another edition". I never saw him say anything to in any way imply that. Did I miss it? If so, I'll readily admit I'm wrong. But I don't think I did. As a purely moral position he is still being consistent. Again, no intent whatsoever to speak for or put words into Clark's mouth. These are my memories and interpretations. [/QUOTE]

Verification