Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kaleon Moonshae" data-source="post: 1631722" data-attributes="member: 12147">Actually, considering this ogl thing is still an infant, it isn't a small number of people who have obfuscated ogl info. Do most of them do it purposefully? no, but I would say a good number of products out there have unclear ogl distinctions. It makes things very hard on those of us anting to incorporate stuff into our own publishing. Especially when some of these suppliments try to claim very general licenses for 'creative content' that really isn't their original idea. A good example of this right off the top of my head is white wolf and some of their ogl claims in Excalibur. (not to mention historically their attempts to copyright things like sluagh and sidhe, which are proper names that are public use due to the fact that they are historical myths hundreds of years old.)my two cents(edit) Another issue, where you say did he refuse to use it &quot;just in case&quot; well, that would be the safe way to go. I hate to say it but creative property is a very rabid beast when you anger it, even if it is unintentional. If you check something to see if it is a good use of OGL, you look at it, and if it isn't good use and they claim something that you unintentionally use (maybe because of parrallel creativity, which isn't nearly as uncommon as authors sometimes like to claim) you have gotten yourself in trouble and a small publisher/author can lose a lot of money in it. It truly is, sometimes, safer to assume it's bad use of ogl than to check. I hate it, but others chime in here, haven't you found that it's the case soemtimes?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kaleon Moonshae, post: 1631722, member: 12147"] Actually, considering this ogl thing is still an infant, it isn't a small number of people who have obfuscated ogl info. Do most of them do it purposefully? no, but I would say a good number of products out there have unclear ogl distinctions. It makes things very hard on those of us anting to incorporate stuff into our own publishing. Especially when some of these suppliments try to claim very general licenses for 'creative content' that really isn't their original idea. A good example of this right off the top of my head is white wolf and some of their ogl claims in Excalibur. (not to mention historically their attempts to copyright things like sluagh and sidhe, which are proper names that are public use due to the fact that they are historical myths hundreds of years old.) my two cents (edit) Another issue, where you say did he refuse to use it "just in case" well, that would be the safe way to go. I hate to say it but creative property is a very rabid beast when you anger it, even if it is unintentional. If you check something to see if it is a good use of OGL, you look at it, and if it isn't good use and they claim something that you unintentionally use (maybe because of parrallel creativity, which isn't nearly as uncommon as authors sometimes like to claim) you have gotten yourself in trouble and a small publisher/author can lose a lot of money in it. It truly is, sometimes, safer to assume it's bad use of ogl than to check. I hate it, but others chime in here, haven't you found that it's the case soemtimes? [/QUOTE]

Verification