Questions about the new SRD [summon Orcus!]

[Orcus]

Mark

Two problems:

1. Do your freaking homework before you call someone out.

In Wizard's Amulet the product name Rappan Athuk is used, the phrase Dungeon of Graves is used affiliated with Rappan Athuk and the product name Crucible of Freya is mentioned like 6 times.

2. Nice ad hominem argument.

Are you saying because of percieved errors by me (which are not errors and are instead failures on your part to read the product) that my opinion that WotC's practice is improper should be called into question? If so, such a position would be logically invalid and thus has no bearing on this discussion. If not, then any discussion of my errors has no relevance to the discussion here and should not have been mentioned.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

I keep reading and it keeps getting better!

You cant find the open game content designation in Wizard's Amulet? You have to be kidding right? Try the legal appendix, under the heading "Designation of Open Game Content". I am going to presume you found that one.

When you complain about there being no OGC and PI designation in the original (as opposed to the revised) you are showing your lack of knowledge.

First, Wizard's Amulet (the original) was the very first d20 product and it was made before the concepts of PI existed (that's right you heard me--BEFORE PI EXISTED). Of course if you, like me, had been involved with the shaping of the license from the very beginning you would have known that. So it is probably better for you not to bust on people regarding stuff you dont know about.

Instead, we were working with an email from Ryan about how to handle that stuff. There wasnt even a draft of the license back then. You would be shocked to see how sparse stuff was back then. Basically we had advanced copies of the PHB (no DMG no MM) and an email from Ryan (addressed to me personally) authorizing the several pre-release companies to use that content. The license was in an embryonic form at the time.

However, despite that lack of historical knowledge by you, you have also failed to find the OGC designation in the original version (though there is no PI declaration since that didnt exist yet, though you will see I called it "closed content" anyway). Try the sidebar headed "Open Game Content" Its right there.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

It never ends!

I see now that you are griping about the names from the download being in the WA PI designation.

Once again, not up to speed.

First, the pregens are a supplement to WA and it specifically states that it is covered by the legal stuff in WA (thus incorporating it into part of WA).

Second, this was done after discussion with Ryan. We all came to an agreement at the time that it would unduly burden supplemental materials affiliated with one product to require seperate copies of the license. For example, why make a one page download have to double in size by adding a whole page of legal to it? No need. That said, I have since adopted the practice of putting legal on all supplemental materials. Just seemed safer.

WA is a bad example to use. It was done before there was even a draft version of the license. The Revised version was put out to comply with version 1.0 of the license--and there still wasnt even an official SRD then.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

Here is a little tip-

The license and compliance with it has changed considerably since the first year. I would not use any original products from the first wave of d20 (until at least Relics and Rituals) as an example of how to do things right in a current sense of what is correct.

Even today there are still arguments on how to properly designate OGC. Plus a few new wrinkles.

So look at new products, not old ones (despite the fact that my old products are actually compliant).

Clark

 

[Orcus]

[boy, that post by Mark must have made me grouchy FOUR consecutive posts by me?!? Sorry about that. Of course this makes 5.]

Clark

 

[Mark]

Sorry. It seems I left out part of my post when I was copying and pasting it. Here's the part that will hopefully help make some sense in regard to those d20 downloads I was using by way of example-

From the d20 System License

9. Changes to Terms of the License
Wizards of the Coast may issue updates and/or revisions to this License without prior notice. You will, at the earliest possible opportunity, conform in all respects to the updated or revised terms of this License. For a period of 90 days You may continue to distribute any pre-existing material that complies with a previous version of the License. Thereafter written consent should be obtained from Wizards of the Coast. Subsequent versions of this License will bear a different version number.

I am in no way complaining. What you do is your business and WA was simply the easiest example for me to reach with which I was sure you would have access as well. But you misquote me. Not OGC but an OGL is what I found missing from the original WA. The OGC designation, I found, and noted the lack of PI designation, which you mention wasn't even in existence at the time of the original distribution.

But, I take the above quoted section of the d20 System License to mean any d20 product currently being distributed is required to be updated within 90 days of each new version of the license. Naturally I assumed anything I would download from Necromancer would be in *current* compliance (at least within the 90 days) as necessary by the terms of the licensing. Is my understanding of this requirement in error? Perhaps you have written consent from WotC which grandfather's WA and it is not required for WA but, of course, I wouldn't be aware of that, so please pardon my not knowing of such.

The original suggests that the OGL can be found on your website but is not part of the original download, hence my further confusion on that matter. I only used those products because they are in current distribution (despite being old) through your site.

Regarding the product references as PI in the revised version, I simply missed those when I briefly read through the product, so I have to apologize for that. I was merely looking to use your product for reference and perhaps should have read it more closely if I was going to do so. Again, my apologies. Despite my missing those terms, the question still stands about whether it is allowable to include terms in the PI designation even if those terms do not appear elsewhere in a product. Is there somewhere that it is said that this is prohibited?

But I am sure you are right that a more recent product's PI designation would be better to use for this discussion. It would help matters if you could share one to contrast how WotC is doing, and thus incorrectly (and why you think their's would not work). I'd appreciate your help.

I'm well aware, btw, of your long involvement with the licensing, and of course I only became involved and following it after the listservers went online (no personal Emails for me to cite). You'll have to forgive me if I came to the party a short while after you. I'm sure your additional experience allows you to be doing everything as correct as anyone could possibly expect from anyone else, so I appreciate your extra attention to my part of these discussions.

So, no need to get grouchy. You, of course, have all my due respect and should not take anything in this discussion as a calling out. Again, I am just wading through this new twist in WotC's evolving licenses and SRD support like you and everyone else. As you recall, I was helping promote Necro's material through gameday's in mid-2001, so you will simply have to take my word and past actions as evidence that I hold you in high regard.

 

[Orcus]

Not OGC but an OGL is what I found missing from the original WA.

There was no formal OGL back then. It was just permission. The license wasnt even in draft form really. Had there been a requirement to inlcude it, I would have included it. Though the way I did that in WA spurred a debate about whether a link to a site was good enough. We all decided it wasnt.

But, I take the above quoted section of the d20 System License to mean any d20 product currently being distributed is required to be updated within 90 days of each new version of the license. Naturally I assumed anything I would download from Necromancer would be in *current* compliance (at least within the 90 days) as necessary by the terms of the licensing. Is my understanding of this requirement in error? Perhaps you have written consent from WotC which grandfather's WA and it is not required for WA but, of course, I wouldn't be aware of that, so please pardon my not knowing of such.

Revised WA is compliant. The original I left up as is because it won an ENnie (as is) and I felt there was some value to showing that. Plus, it was used as part of a discussion on the evolution of compliance so keeping it available has a value.

Regarding the product references as PI in the revised version, I simply missed those when I briefly read through the product, so I have to apologize for that.

You should.

If you are going to call someone out for mistakes of that magnitude you better f***ing be right. Which you werent.

I was merely looking to use your product for reference and perhaps should have read it more closely if I was going to do so.

I dont care what your intent was. I didnt make you post those comments. That was your choice. Not mine. Next time do your freaking homework instead of bandying about accusations of non-compliance.

Again, my apologies. Despite my missing those terms, the question still stands about whether it is allowable to include terms in the PI designation even if those terms do not appear elsewhere in a product. Is there somewhere that it is said that this is prohibited?

I already answered that. I dont think that is permissible. Now, what you define as "product" might be different from mine. I already explained why an accompanying download can be considered part and parcel of another document and all part of one whole.

It would help matters if you could share one to contrast how WotC is doing, and thus incorrectly (and why you think their's would not work).

No it wouldnt, since I have never tried to PI content that isnt in a product.

so you will simply have to take my word and past actions as evidence that I hold you in high regard.

Its not about regard, its about responsibility. I, like (almost) every other d20 publisher takes issues of compliance very seriously. This is real important to use. Real real important. So to see you cite mistakes that arent even present in my product is an important topic. I'm just giving you a heads up for future discussion.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

That last post seemed a bit harsh. I dont want to edit or delete it because it is all true. But I will soften it a bit here. I appreciate you said you made a boo boo. We all do, I understand that. Its all good. Just please know that all responsible publishers take compliance issues real seriously so mistaken comments are like drilling on a tooth or nails on a chalkboard. Sorry if I got on you too hard.

Clark

 

[Mark]

That last post seemed a bit harsh. I dont want to edit or delete it because it is all true. But I will soften it a bit here. I appreciate you said you made a boo boo. We all do, I understand that. Its all good. Just please know that all responsible publishers take compliance issues real seriously so mistaken comments are like drilling on a tooth or nails on a chalkboard. Sorry if I got on you too hard.

Clark

No harm done. I appreciate you posting again to clarify why the original was still up on the site. It had me confused and I'm sure that there are other less experienced would-be publishers out there that look to you for leadership. It might be worth making a notation near the download to warn people it should not be viewed as an example of current methods of compliance. We'll just leave the rest of the thread as a lesson in responsibility, as you mention. Thanks for stopping back to smooth things over. Hopefully come next Gencon my family difficulties will be over, one way or another, and we'll have the chance to chuckle over less important things.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Whooff, all that and not one request to "curtail that activity." He really does hold you in high regard.

Clark and Mark both, I appreciate the discussion and the insight. Talking (and especially listening) is how we learn... We've certainly come a long (much more useful) way from, "Challenge WOTC in court and see what happens."


Wulf