Question about OGL

[Gilwen]

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.

I'm not quite clear on how Ranger meant his comment.


The reason I don't like the S.15 the way it is done now is because it can get quite large by sourcing just few sources for just a few feats or spells. What would I do if I was the man in charge? I don't know. To enable the license to allow you to cite only the sources you used directly or indirectly would mean a fundamental change to the license and probalby make things overly complicated and error prone. As it stands now some ppl still get it wrong with the current license, although the biggest problem that I've seen is ppl not placing their own s.15 entry in their products s.15 which is required.

Gil

 

[Roger]

Also note that while S15 is required to be inclusive -- including every source (and their sources, etc etc) that you draw material from -- I don't believe that there is any requirement for it to be exclusive. That is, as far as I know, it is fine to reference, say, Spycraft 2.0, in your S15, even if you didn't actually use any material from it.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Ranger REG]

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...

...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.

I prefer to be on the "fully docked on the safe harbor" side.

I personally don't believe in tracing the lineage of the content, be it derived or re-use of the original, other than the SRD (or some other core rulesystem document that have been placed under the OGL). But some would argue strongly. If a content you're using in your product from Book Y is derived from Book X, then why only cite Book Y and leave out Book X?

Of course my answer would be "Because I'm not using Book X. I'm using Book Y."

More power to you if you fully understand and use the OGL without a lawyer.

 

[kingpaul]

If a content you're using in your product from Book Y is derived from Book X, then why only cite Book Y and leave out Book X?

But if Y derives from X, then X should be in Y's S15. And if you derive from Y, then your S15 will contain Y's...which will have X's.

 

[Gilwen]

And if you are only using Y then the license only requires you to cite Y's S.15 not all of the sources that Y used.

 

[Nellisir]

More power to you if you fully understand and use the OGL without a lawyer.

Well, I'm pretty sure I do understand it. I've been using my S.15 as an example for some time now, and no one has pointed out any errors. If they did, I'd fix them and be that much more educated. The d20 license can be a little subtle, but I honestly think the OGL is only a problem when you try to "game" the license, if you'll pardon the pun.

 

[Nellisir]

Also note that while S15 is required to be inclusive -- including every source (and their sources, etc etc) that you draw material from -- I don't believe that there is any requirement for it to be exclusive. That is, as far as I know, it is fine to reference, say, Spycraft 2.0, in your S15, even if you didn't actually use any material from it.

And thank god for that, or my S.15 would only be a mundane 1/4 page, and not the 3-page (8pnt text) thing of beauty that it is now!

 

[kingpaul]

And if you are only using Y then the license only requires you to cite Y's S.15 not all of the sources that Y used.

But everything that Y used should already be in Y's S15.

 

[Gilwen]

But everything that Y used should already be in Y's S15.

right, I was just trying to state that there is not a requirement to go further up the chain past Y.

 

[kingpaul]

right, I was just trying to state that there is not a requirement to go further up the chain past Y.

Ah. Sorry, misunderstood you.