Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 364371" data-attributes="member: 2013">Having picked up the MM2 yesterday, I found this a bit amusing.I understand that WotC is not obligated to follow the 5% OGC rule when using the d20 logo.But they are as bound by the OGL as everyone else.&nbsp; When they borrowed OGC creatures from the Creature Collection, they crashed and burned.Mistake 1: They did not update their Section 15 of the OGL.&nbsp; It lists only the Open Game License.&nbsp; By the terms of the Open Gaming License, it must include the Section 15 of the work.&nbsp; Clearly, those creatures were derivative of material from the System Reference Document, so the SRD should have been referenced.&nbsp; While it is possible that they obtained the creatures directly from Clark, without the CC mentioned in the Section 15, I think they probably should have included that as well.Mistake 2: They declared the entire contents of the creatures OGC.&nbsp; In the CC, the creatures' names are NOT OGC.&nbsp; I don't doubt that Clark gave WotC writtern permission to USE the names.&nbsp; But unless they also have written permission from Clark to do so, they just declared something OGC that they have no right to declare OGC.&nbsp; If they DID get permission from Clark, they probably should have done a better job making it clear that they have it.I'm REALLY disappointed in WotC hammering on everyone else to &quot;get OGL-compliant, dammit&quot; and then drop the ball so grievously on the very points they scream at everyone else to adhere to (ESPECIALLY Section 15).Now, here comes my question:Can Clark use WotC's own lawyers to force WotC to comply with the OGL? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />--The Sigil</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 364371, member: 2013"] Having picked up the MM2 yesterday, I found this a bit amusing. I understand that WotC is not obligated to follow the 5% OGC rule when using the d20 logo. But they are as bound by the OGL as everyone else. When they borrowed OGC creatures from the Creature Collection, they crashed and burned. Mistake 1: They did not update their Section 15 of the OGL. It lists only the Open Game License. By the terms of the Open Gaming License, it must include the Section 15 of the work. Clearly, those creatures were derivative of material from the System Reference Document, so the SRD should have been referenced. While it is possible that they obtained the creatures directly from Clark, without the CC mentioned in the Section 15, I think they probably should have included that as well. Mistake 2: They declared the entire contents of the creatures OGC. In the CC, the creatures' names are NOT OGC. I don't doubt that Clark gave WotC writtern permission to USE the names. But unless they also have written permission from Clark to do so, they just declared something OGC that they have no right to declare OGC. If they DID get permission from Clark, they probably should have done a better job making it clear that they have it. I'm REALLY disappointed in WotC hammering on everyone else to "get OGL-compliant, dammit" and then drop the ball so grievously on the very points they scream at everyone else to adhere to (ESPECIALLY Section 15). Now, here comes my question: Can Clark use WotC's own lawyers to force WotC to comply with the OGL? :D --The Sigil [/QUOTE]

Verification