Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6019069" data-attributes="member: 42582">Maybe you misunderstood me. My point is that Pathfinder is self-consciously a version of D&D - there is no other conclusion to be drawn from the "3.5 Thrives" slogan on the poster.Agreed. Nor is every game that uses the OGL to draw upon the SRD a version of D&D - for example, Mutants & Masterminds is not. Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and d20 Conan I would say are on the cusp of being versions of D&D - same PC build and action resolution structure, but different combat rules in Conan and different magic rules in both marking a significant departure. Pathfinder strikes me as so obviously a version of 3E D&D in everything but branding - and even there it comes as close as it legally can, with its "3.5 Thrives" slogan - that I find it odd that the matter is contentious.I meant the declaration in Section 15. In PF Beta, it reads:System Reference Document. Copyright 2000. Wizards of the Coast, Inc; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, based on material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.I actually think there is an error in that declaration: given that PF (even in Beta) includes 3.5 material like Polar Ray in place of Otiluke's Freezing Sphere, the reference should be to the 3.5 SRD, which ought to be cited as follows:System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas Reid, James Wyatt, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. I assume that they got that right in the final version.EDIT: Maybe they didn't. I've just had a look at the online Pathfinder SRD. It has the same reference to the 2000 SRD in its Section 15 declaration, and it also has the Polar Ray spell with text that is identical to that of the 3.5 SRD except for changing the range (from Close to Medium), adding "and 1d4 points of Dexterity drain" to the end of the effect description, and deleting the word "small" from the description of the white cone that is a focus for the spell.I wonder whether the website copied this from the final Pathfinder book or an earlier version (like the Beta).Anyway, I think that puts the website in breach of the OGL, given that they are reproducing content that is derivative of the 3.5 SRD, and is therefore Open Game Content (per the definition in Section 1 of the licence), but they have not updated their Section 15 declaration "to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content [they] are copying, modifying or distributing", as required by Section 6 of the licence.It seems a careless error that needlessly exposes the Pathfinder SRD website to the possibility of complaints from WotC for breach of contract and/or breach of copyright.FURTHER EDIT:I just had a look at some of my Arcana Unearthed/Evolved stuff, and it all seems to get the declaration right (although my PDF of Plague of Dreams seems to be missing the legal stuff altogether!). This fits with my expectations - Monte always seems to have been very accurate in his treatment of the legalities of publishing under the OGL.That said, it really would be very bizarre if Paizo have made such a basic error in their Section 15 declaration, given how central the technicalities of the OGL are to their business model!</blockquote>

Verification