Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 960673" data-attributes="member: 5">Perhaps more apropos to say that the "ColorOGL" in effect says:Open Game Content" means that the colors red and yellow and orange are OGC.  If I then include burnt orange it could be argued that it is derivative of orange but if I include blue (it's a gritty setting <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ), which is not mentioned, is it included automatically as OGC?  While one might argue it is a color, and therefore included implicitly, there is little in contract law, from my understanding that can hold up based on implicity.  Contracts are written to avoid implicity and based on explicty.I may have mentioned that I am not a lawyer but it's my understanding that when a disputed contract goes to court the intent of the contract, the understanding of the contract (by each party involved), and the broadest interpretation of the semantics are taken into account prior to rendering of a ruling.At the end of the day, contracts are no more than words and they must stand on their own in the determination of the validity and meaning of a contract (they must defend themselves, to an extent).Further, I do not believe that WotC's intent was to force all game mechnics to be OGC (they've purposefully left some of their own game mechanics out of the SRD, but not out of their own works), but rather that all game mechanics that are OGC remain as such (inclusive of future derivative mechanics) and that it is encouraged that anyone joining into the contract be encouraged to contribute additional OGC and new mechanics (thus making the OGL more attractive to a continually growing field of contributors).I might be wrong but the actions of WotC ("they've purposefully left some of their own out of the SRD, but not out of their works") speaks as much to their intent as any words that might be proffered in court to bolster your interpretation, if indeed yours is the one that would be put forth.  That contradiction leaves us then with the words of the contract itself to guide us and the words of the contract leave it open to my own interpretation as much as yours, IMO.  Additionally, my interpretation does not eliminate your ability to contribute, whereas your interpretation eliminates my ability to preserve some material.  If a court needed to determine if someone was in their right to preserve and there is room within the semantics of the contract or potential interpretation of that contract to allow for that preservation a court might be inclined to not be more restrictive than the letter of the contract bolstered by contradictory displays of intent in spite of whatever testimony was proffered to support a more restrictive interpretation.  *shrug*...still not a lawyer... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification