Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 1022594" data-attributes="member: 94">Mark, you made some good points (eventually). I wish I'd seen that analysis in your first foray into the thread. You are being disingenuous if you stand by&nbsp; your initial post as in any way helpful in this thread.To respond:I wasn't &quot;railing&quot; in any way in my initial post.When I need binding legal advice, I will ask my lawyer.When I want to read ranting and railing, I also keep a close eye on the OGL lists.But when I am simply looking for the opinion of fellow publishers in a user-friendly and open public forum, you will find me right here. I am here to solicit opinions and discussion, not legal advice.So... If the constant ranting and railing about the license--&nbsp; though my initial post was no such thing-- has you bored to tears, you're invited once again to find another thread. The subject line wasn't misleading, so although bursting in to immediately hose down the discussion with pedantry may not be trolling,&nbsp; it's bad form,&nbsp; at the least. (And again, I find it increasingly surprising and out of character-- if you'll accept a back-handed compliment-- coming from you.) To reiterate, I appreciate the analysis you eventually offered, and although I think you are correct in your assessment of what WOTC is trying to do, the nature of law is to rely first on the plain language as written, not to leave it to the interpretation of the individual. As written, they have attempted to reserve the term &quot;d20&quot; as Product Identity-- and to clarify, that is in addition to reserving the term &quot;d20 System,&quot; as you can see in my initial post.Wulf</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wulf Ratbane, post: 1022594, member: 94"] Mark, you made some good points (eventually). I wish I'd seen that analysis in your first foray into the thread. You are being disingenuous if you stand by your initial post as in any way helpful in this thread. To respond: I wasn't "railing" in any way in my initial post. When I need binding legal advice, I will ask my lawyer. When I want to read ranting and railing, I [i]also[/i] keep a close eye on the OGL lists. But when I am simply looking for the opinion of fellow publishers in a user-friendly and open public forum, you will find me right here. I am here to solicit opinions and discussion, not legal advice. So... If the constant ranting and railing about the license-- though my initial post was no such thing-- has you bored to tears, you're invited once again to find another thread. The subject line wasn't misleading, so although bursting in to immediately hose down the discussion with pedantry may not be trolling, it's bad form, at the least. (And again, I find it increasingly surprising and out of character-- if you'll accept a back-handed compliment-- coming from you.) To reiterate, I appreciate the analysis you eventually offered, and although I think you are correct in your assessment of what WOTC is [i]trying[/i] to do, the nature of law is to rely first on the plain language as written, not to leave it to the interpretation of the individual. As written, they have attempted to reserve the term "d20" as Product Identity-- and to clarify, that is in [b]addition[/b] to reserving the term "d20 System," as you can see in my initial post. Wulf [/QUOTE]

Verification