Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="smetzger" data-source="post: 3692972" data-attributes="member: 1230">Why does WOTC need to 'protect' themselves?&nbsp; I don't see the need at all.&nbsp; If they develop something independently then they can use it w/o any moral or legal fears.&nbsp; So why this 'extra' language.If I discuss a rule or an idea on Gleemax, why can't I publish it on my own web site?&nbsp; If I link to my new idea in a posting on Gleemax and then people ask questions and I reply with clarifications, then is it still ok to have the idea/rule on my web site?&nbsp; Can I add the clarifications to my web site?&nbsp; Have I now let WOTC use the idea/rule w/o giving me at least the credit the I am allowed under the OGC?&nbsp; Can WOTC now release it as their OGC?Many a great idea and series of ideas has germinated as a post on EN World.&nbsp; Some of these have gone on to be succesful products and the author has emerged as a key player in the D20/OGC world.&nbsp; Scott Greene is one such author that comes to mind, I am sure there are others.Although I can't prove it I am almost certain that WOTC used my ideas for counterspells when developing 3e.&nbsp; Take a look at this posting, which was before WOTC anounced that 3e was on the way...<a href="http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_frm/thread/567a7044c06a6190/3cde4dc447ae3229?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF8&amp;rnum=2&amp;prev=/groups%3Fq%3DSpell%2BDuel%2Bgroup:rec.games.frp.dnd%2Bauthor:scott%2Bauthor:metzger%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF8%26selm%3D7mdopq%2524li%25241%2540nnrp1.deja.com%26rnum%3D2#3cde4dc447ae3229" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_frm/thread/567a7044c06a6190/3cde4dc447ae3229?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF8&amp;rnum=2&amp;prev=/groups?q=Spell+Duel+group:rec.games.frp.dnd+author:scott+author:metzger&amp;hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF8&amp;selm=7mdopq%24li%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&amp;rnum=2#3cde4dc447ae3229</a>I don't see why WOTC needs the 'extra' protection.&nbsp; If they want Gleemax to be an 'open' community they should get rid of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="smetzger, post: 3692972, member: 1230"] Why does WOTC need to 'protect' themselves? I don't see the need at all. If they develop something independently then they can use it w/o any moral or legal fears. So why this 'extra' language. If I discuss a rule or an idea on Gleemax, why can't I publish it on my own web site? If I link to my new idea in a posting on Gleemax and then people ask questions and I reply with clarifications, then is it still ok to have the idea/rule on my web site? Can I add the clarifications to my web site? Have I now let WOTC use the idea/rule w/o giving me at least the credit the I am allowed under the OGC? Can WOTC now release it as their OGC? Many a great idea and series of ideas has germinated as a post on EN World. Some of these have gone on to be succesful products and the author has emerged as a key player in the D20/OGC world. Scott Greene is one such author that comes to mind, I am sure there are others. Although I can't prove it I am almost certain that WOTC used my ideas for counterspells when developing 3e. Take a look at this posting, which was before WOTC anounced that 3e was on the way... [url]http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_frm/thread/567a7044c06a6190/3cde4dc447ae3229?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF8&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DSpell%2BDuel%2Bgroup:rec.games.frp.dnd%2Bauthor:scott%2Bauthor:metzger%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF8%26selm%3D7mdopq%2524li%25241%2540nnrp1.deja.com%26rnum%3D2#3cde4dc447ae3229[/url] I don't see why WOTC needs the 'extra' protection. If they want Gleemax to be an 'open' community they should get rid of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification