"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[woodelf]

In order: No; the SRDs; you can't refer to the books by name but can refer to anything in the SRD; and yes, the d20 modern SRD is OGLed.

One mistake: if you're not using the D20STL, there is no explicit rule on using the titles of the WotC D&D books. However, there is a clause forbidding using trademarks to indicate "compatibility or co-adaptability" [without permission]. Nonetheless, the only WotC book with a trademark in the title is Dungeon Master's Guide. Therefore, if you're not using teh D20STL, you can freely refer to most of the WotC books (D&D and otherwise).

 

[mythusmage]

One mistake: if you're not using the D20STL, there is no explicit rule on using the titles of the WotC D&D books. However, there is a clause forbidding using trademarks to indicate "compatibility or co-adaptability" [without permission]. Nonetheless, the only WotC book with a trademark in the title is Dungeon Master's Guide. Therefore, if you're not using teh D20STL, you can freely refer to most of the WotC books (D&D and otherwise).

Trouble is, a check with Wizards' legal beagles will show that the book names are registered trademarks. The trademark sign with "Dungeon Master" in Dungeon Master's Guide is there to show that "Dungeon Master" is a trademark of WotC.

 

[Orcus]

I have sent Morrus a big pdf I created parsing through and discussing the various changes. Hopefully the document will be useful as a basis for discussing the various license changes. I emailed the document to Ryan as well. He reviewed a draft of it last night and will be posting it on his OGF site. I will also have a copy posted on the Legal page of our web site for those who may want to review it.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

Here is the link to the document I created discussing and parsing the changes.

I created this not as legal advice but rather as a starting point to discuss the changes.

I hope this helps educate people on the changes and helps any future discussion on the topic. I have sent a copy to Ryan. He reviewed a draft of this document yesterday with approval.

http://www.necromancergames.com/pdf/d20stlreview.pdf

Clark

 

[KDLadage]

Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Very interesting and informative...

 

[KDLadage]

Mr. Peterson, I do have one question for you:

Given that there is no time limit (as you point out in your document), in your opinion, if I were to get WotCs approval for d20 Book X, and they were to tell me that the book was acceptable in regards to the decency clauses...

...can they then (for sake of argument let's say a year later) return to tell me that the material that they had approved the previous year, they no longer consider acceptable this year. In other words, can they (under the D20 STL v5.0 as you read it) retroactively recind their previous approval of a book?

Does the answer to this question change if the personnel at WotC have or have not changed during that year of delay between my getting the approval and them deciding that I am not, in fact, in compliance?

 

[DaveMage]

I've been having trouble accessing the necromancer site lately - including trying to view this document. Anyone having similar problems?

 

[Henry]

Thank you for this, Clark. Reading the section of the analysis regarding real-world situations and religions, it's no wonder Avalanche has gone OGL only; there's no way they could run profitably in their chosen fields under the provisions of this license, IMO.

Coincidentally, the topics affected are EXACTLY the topics I am interested in - real-world reference material with historical foci. The closer to depiction of source material it is, the more likely it would violate the license.

Fortunately, I own a copy of Testament; unfortunately, how much more Mythic Vistas stuff I will own is now in question.

 

[BSF]

Thank you for the review!

I had not caught on to the nature of the license being by publisher, not by product.

Even more than previously, I can see where this may make some people uncomfortable to publish using the D20STL.

 

[tensen]

It is possible under the new license to depict a beggar?

I mean, generally they had a handicap. They probably are treated inferior to other people.

I guess this means we will have a truly fantasy city. No beggars.. Heck, not even the Feudal society. Because we can't depict the noblity as treating the peasants as inferior.