Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 548525" data-attributes="member: 5">I am not a law talking guy but...I do not believe that this is correct.  Conventional wisdom tells us that "Contract Law" is explicit by nature and does not imply anything.  It may be interpreted by a court to be inclusive of things that are not expressed directly but on its face, it is what it is.Someone once told me that to extend the parameters of a written contract you had better be extremely convincing (in court), have extensive precedent or be trying to envelope additional and impossible to foresee (by all parties, and perhaps society) circumstances that are a natural extension of the contract.  It would appear that the second two and third parts of that last statement do not contradict one another but, as I said, I am not a law talking guy.Without citing very specific examples, I do not believe you can deeply discuss whether a particular rule or rules set can or need to be declared OGC.  The simple fact of the matter is that the discussion needs to include a test of whether the material is (or is not) derivative of the SRD or SRD-subsequent (and possibly independent) OGC.  Unless you discuss specific material, you cannot perform the test.One aspect of the OGL that has been muddied (IMO as a non-law talking guy) is the declaration of PI.  There seems to be a penchant in the industry to press close to the boundry of what is, or will be, acceptable (by courts, which is where such things can ultimately be challenged) as an expression of PI.  If I am not mistaken, if such an expression is vague but goes unchallenged for a period of time (and I do not know if there is a limit on that period of time), then it may be possible to cite such an expression as acceptable even if it was not acceptable in the minds of those who framed the original contract.Does anyone care to comment and help out this non-law talking guy...?  (Thanks in advance. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )</blockquote>

Verification