Nellisir
Hero
I defined the phrase you found confusing. Other than that, I don't think it needs much defending.Lizard said:Yup. If you're going to propose a solution to a problem, you'd better be prepared to defend it better than "Let the lawyers work it out; my work here is done."
If you want to define something, lets define the argument here. On one hand, we've got an optimistic view that WotC (who have stated they want to end the cut-and-paste SRD) can't or won't effectively end the cut-n-paste SRD. They'll just outsource it to geeks on the internet who want to Put It To The Man.
On the other hand, we've got pessimists like me, who think WotC's legal team might actually be able to put something together that does prevent a cut-n-paste SRD. I took one stab at a possible restriction (not a "solution"; I think it'd suck). You seem intent on tearing it down, but I'm not really sure why. Do you really think WotC is just going to handwave away someone ripping the SRD out of the core books? Or do you think they're going to enforce it some other way? If so, how?
Believe me, I'm not going to be happy about restrictions on GSC content, but I also think they'll be there. I'd rather be wrong than right, but I'd also rather be prepared.
That's silly; that's like saying if you can't plan out a house you can't hire an architect to do it for you. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not going to play make-believe and spout gibberish any more than I'd waste my time trying to engineer a truss system for the next house I build. I wasn't writing a license; I was voicing a possible restriction on freely replicating GSC, a restriction based (at least conceptually) on one already extant in the d20 license.We use legalese because 'plain English' doesn't cut it. If you can't define it in legalese, it can't be defined in a way that's useful.
I don't know what WotC is trying to prevent. I know they're trying to steer people towards their actual books and away from SRDs, which I assume (at my own risk) includes 3rd-party for-profit SRDs. I know that because they've said so. Beyond that, I prefer not to speculate much about their motives and ultimate goals (but I do anyways, and in this very post!)You don't need to buy it. It's free on the net. THAT'S what WOTC is trying to prevent, right?
Actually, my "solution" (which isn't a solution), makes free SRDs more likely than for-profit SRDs. However, it also introduces a barrier to casual reproduction that your "solution" doesn't eliminate. Your solution surmounts the barrier, but you expend effort in doing so. It in no way eliminates or bypasses the barrier.So your solution to the problem of free SRDs, by your own admission, doesn't actually keep anyone from putting up a free SRD. So...uh...what's the point?
That's a valid point. WotC wants to keep people referring to their books, so it not unreasonable to guess that eliminating stand-alone games is a goal. I don't think all stand-alone games "easily" have more original material than copied, but some do. So the restriction will probably be more onerous, not less.To prevent spinoff games like Spycraft, et al? They will easily have more original material than copied if they're going to be worth buying at all, so that's a non-problem, too.
Then again, I did say "x"%. 50% was an example. Maybe it'll be 90% original material. Mutants & Masterminds is the only game I can think of offhand that has a likelyhood of hitting that mark.
Maybe a "starting point" restriction rather than an "end-point" restriction; no more than 5% of the GSC in the PH, DMG, or MM can be reproduced in a single work. You could still make 20 free partial SRDs, so that's probably not the right answer either, but it does allow for just-core traps and monsters in a 3rd-party product.
Or maybe they'll define GSC in inviolate "units"; a spell; a feat; a race; a class; a trap; a monster; and tightly restrict how many units you can copy per product, and not allow changes to the units. That'd establish a single standard for D&D rules and go a long way towards feeding things back into the core rules. Again, there is a precedent for this in the d20 STL.
Or they could just define what types of products are allowed; I don't know exactly how they'd say it (see above for IANAL speech), but maybe they'll just limit the license to splat books, monster books, and adventures.