Question about OGL

[Kafkonia]

For who? If you cite the source, the author of said source would look to your product and find which one of his you used and make sure it is properly used.

Well, the one that springs to mind is the various pocket-book-sized, geography-themed monster books. More than once I wanted to see the source of the monster to get a better idea of the world from which it came.

 

[tenkar]

But you do get my gist, right?

If so, then my work is done.

I got the gist... I just didn't want to risk getting anything else... but let me see if I can get you a rubber ducky to keep you company in your bath

 

[Nellisir]

I don't necessary like the way the section 15 is done because you have to reproduce it exactly from every source which means you have things in your final section 15 that you may not even have sourced, even indirecdtly.

The thing is, you don't know where your source got their material from. Something you think is theirs could be from a source even further upstream, one you don't own and have never seen.

My website (which still hasn't gotten far out of my imagination) has probably the biggest Section 15 I've ever seen. I've included most of my d20 library (not all, yet) as a sort of preemptive strike. I don't know -what- I'll pull off the shelf and reference next, so I figured I might as well just include everything.

 

[Ranger REG]

I got the gist... I just didn't want to risk getting anything else... but let me see if I can get you a rubber ducky to keep you company in your bath

Trust me, I initially wanted to use the car analogy, but IMNSHO, washing the car by myself is so much hassle, I would invite someone to do it for me.

 

[Ranger REG]

The thing is, you don't know where your source got their material from. Something you think is theirs could be from a source even further upstream, one you don't own and have never seen.

Then you cite the lineage of sources that trace back to the SRD.

 

[Nellisir]

Then you cite the lineage of sources that trace back to the SRD.

What? So you need to track not only the copyrights, but the order? And that's supposed to be -better-???

I take OGC from X and from Y. X took some from A, A from B, B from C, and C derived it from the SRD. Y took something different from C, which got it from K, who got it from L, who got part of it from A and part of it from the SRD. Y also took something else from A, which A got from the SRD.

How is -that- supposed to be neatly and clearly presented without repeating, overlapping, and redundant entries? AND, that just for a couple of feats!! Since I'm compiling a book of feats, what about the other 200??

I'll take my neatly alphabetized list, thank you very much.

I hope I'm really misunderstanding something here, because otherwise this sounds like a monstrously bad idea. Good thing the OGL is forever and it's all hypothetical.

 

[kingpaul]

So you need to track not only the copyrights, but the order?

No, if you use OGC from source X, you need to include all of S15 from X in your S15.

Common practice is not include duplicates. So, your S15 needs to include the OGL, and X's includes the OGL. You don't need to have the OGL in your S15 twice.

That make more sense?

 

[Nellisir]

No, if you use OGC from source X, you need to include all of S15 from X in your S15.

Common practice is not include duplicates. So, your S15 needs to include the OGL, and X's includes the OGL. You don't need to have the OGL in your S15 twice.

That make more sense?

Err, that's how things work now. I'm perfectly clear on that.

I was replying to Gilwen & Ranger REG, who seem to be arguing for some kind of modified attribution system that tracks every feat and spell individually. Or something like that. Gilwen definately said he didn't like the current requirements of the S.15 - that much I'm clear on.

 

[Ranger REG]

How is -that- supposed to be neatly and clearly presented without repeating, overlapping, and redundant entries? AND, that just for a couple of feats!! Since I'm compiling a book of feats, what about the other 200??

Well, you don't have to organize it in some sort of family tree chart. Check with your lawyer.

 

[Nellisir]

Well, you don't have to organize it in some sort of family tree chart. Check with your lawyer.

I don't have to check with my lawyer. I'm already doing things according to the OGL, and I'm fine with the OGL. I understand it perfectly well. This has nothing to do with my understanding of the OGL as it stands, and everything to do with my understanding of how you think it should be changed, if that is in fact what you're saying.

Look, when you said this...

Then you cite the lineage of sources that trace back to the SRD.

...were you disagreeing with me, or trying to explain the process to Gilwen? I took it as an argument -for- and agreement with Gilwen's dissatisfaction with the S.15, but I could have been wrong. If I was, then this whole tangent is moot.