Andrew D. Gable
First Post
What would I need to put in Section 15 if I was just referencing the names demodand and daemon, not any specific types? Maybe nothing, but it's safer to ask.
((Necromancer)) OGL Question Re: Tome of Horrors (URGENT!)
- Thread starter Andrew D. Gable
- Start date
HalWhitewyrm
First Post
Well, for the word daemon you don't need to put anything, as this is an archaic form (late Latin, according to Dictionary.com) of the word demon, much like daimon (Greek).
Demodand, on the other hand, is a created word, so in that case, the advice above works: choose a creature that has the name and stick it in the s.15 of your OGL.
Hope that helps.
Demodand, on the other hand, is a created word, so in that case, the advice above works: choose a creature that has the name and stick it in the s.15 of your OGL.
Hope that helps.
Last edited:
Cergorach
The Laughing One
You folks don't seem to get something, when you want to use the OGL, then you have to play by the OGL rules. The rules clearly state that if you use OGC from another source you have to credit that source in your section 15. Obviously the first poster is using the names from an OGC source, otherwise he wouldn't have asked the question he asked, to not credit the source properly in his section 15 is like giving an invitation to a lawyer. In this case it is literaly, Clark is a lawyer (and a good one from what i've been told), screwing with his 'babies' is like inviting the wrath of Orcus... Crap, that's right again... ;-)
Cergorach, if someone releases an OGC product that has a class called Guard in it, other people can still use the word guard in every other context as long as they don't refer to that specific implementation of the class. In fact, they could even come up with another implementation of the Guard and not have to reference the first implementation. Right?
HalWhitewyrm
First Post
Yeah, but it doesn't just work like that. If Andrew (or anyone for that matter) was going to use (example) a Daemon: Cacodaemon from ToH, then he would absolutely have to put the Cacodaemon's copyright in his OGL. But if he's just using the word daemon (and this is assuming he has not used absolutely anything at all from any entry with the name daemon from ToH) there is no need to put any copyright info because the word daemon is not anyone's copyright or PI, for that matter. You can certainly copyright and/or PI a specific use of the word daemon (say, Boogerdaemon), but not the word itself since it is a word in common parlance. I don't know that much about demodand, so I won't comment on it.
There's been a few cases lately of publishers PI-ing words that by all means should not be subjected to PI. Examples of this is Malhavoc PI-ing "Akashic" or The Le Games PI-ing "bauble." Both of these words are part of the common (though archaic) English language. That'd be like me PI-ing "Celtoi," when this is just the original Greek word for the Celtic peoples; it may be archaic, but it is still part of the common language. Now, I can certainly understand that I can't go and create a class called the "Akashic" without treading very carefully around Malhavoc's property, and I can't certainly go and create something called a "bauble of ancient power" (which is what should be PI, as a phrase, not as a word) without infringing The Le's PI, but I can certainly make as much use of the word Akashic (and the concepts behind the Akashic Records) and bauble in my product without any problem.
Now, IANAL and all that, and perhaps I am 100% wrong about this, so if there's any lawyers, your input would be most appreciated.
There's been a few cases lately of publishers PI-ing words that by all means should not be subjected to PI. Examples of this is Malhavoc PI-ing "Akashic" or The Le Games PI-ing "bauble." Both of these words are part of the common (though archaic) English language. That'd be like me PI-ing "Celtoi," when this is just the original Greek word for the Celtic peoples; it may be archaic, but it is still part of the common language. Now, I can certainly understand that I can't go and create a class called the "Akashic" without treading very carefully around Malhavoc's property, and I can't certainly go and create something called a "bauble of ancient power" (which is what should be PI, as a phrase, not as a word) without infringing The Le's PI, but I can certainly make as much use of the word Akashic (and the concepts behind the Akashic Records) and bauble in my product without any problem.
Now, IANAL and all that, and perhaps I am 100% wrong about this, so if there's any lawyers, your input would be most appreciated.
Similar Threads
