Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 144691" data-attributes="member: 94">Re: Re: Re: Re: It's finally happening - an OGL spell compilation - thoughts from publishers?Can you protect mechanics? Well, that's a larger issue that harkens back to the reason the OGL exists in the first place. I don't want to get into that here. Suffice to say the question is moot once the OGL is governing the situation. If you use the OGL, you essentially give up your right to even try to claim the mechanics.Spell descriptors and energy subtypes are a staple of the SRD, as are creature sub-types and their resistances. Congrats! You've just produced Open Content, clearly derived from the SRD. It really must be derived from the SRD if it is to have any relevance to the d20 ruleset whatsoever. Basically, if it's "rules" it's probably OGC. If it's "fluff" it is probably protectable as PI. It is not as hard to prove derivation as you think. "Compatible with d20" is a pretty good litmus test, unless you want to try to convince da judge that you came up with some new rules-related terms which just coincidentally dovetail into the d20 ruleset. (And that's going to be impossible to do if your product has a d20 label slapped on the front of it and the OGL reprinted at the back.)I agree with you that "derived from the SRD" is a lazy way to designate open content. It doesn't serve anyone's interests, since a publisher is likely to know the difference. All you are really doing is confusing the issue for the untrained end-user.I understand that some publishers have used feats from the Netbook (Bluffsides? Anyone know for sure?). I am curious to see if they have updated Section 15 correctly, incorrectly, or if there is simply a work-around.Wulf</blockquote>

Verification