Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dcollins" data-source="post: 1028090" data-attributes="member: 876">Actually, to be clear, Wulf, I have to technically disagree here. None of the 45 or so pieces of PI asserted appear in the body of the revised SRD Legal document. (With the single exception of &quot;d20&quot;).In fact, I'm additionally wondering if it was incorrect of them to add a PI assertion section in the SRD Legal document. The 3.0 SRD Legal had no such paragraph. The document asserts that the whole document is OGC, and yet contains a subsection claiming pieces of PI which are not otherwise in the SRD. That seems to be another contradiction brought about by careless editing (although not quite so blatant as the &quot;d20&quot; one).And smetzger, I hope you noted my prior post that WOTC's own FAQ says that once something is released as OGC, it cannot later be claimed as PI.This change still feels a bit squishy, frankly -- (a) &quot;d20&quot; doesn't exist at the current time as a trademark, unlike everything else asserted as PI; (b) it's not clear that a distinction of &quot;sometimes trademark/ sometimes not&quot; can be made in the same body of work for a single word; and (c) even if it removes a clear-cut contradiction, it's now at best a wierd redundancy, since any trademark is already unusable per Section 7.I'm forced to categorize this whole event as &quot;WOTC adding uncertainty to the market&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dcollins, post: 1028090, member: 876"] Actually, to be clear, Wulf, I have to technically disagree here. [i]None[/i] of the 45 or so pieces of PI asserted appear in the body of the revised SRD Legal document. (With the single exception of "d20"). In fact, I'm additionally wondering if it was incorrect of them to add a PI assertion section in the SRD Legal document. The 3.0 SRD Legal had no such paragraph. The document asserts that the whole document is OGC, and yet contains a subsection claiming pieces of PI which are not otherwise in the SRD. That seems to be another contradiction brought about by careless editing (although not quite so blatant as the "d20" one). And smetzger, I hope you noted my prior post that WOTC's own FAQ says that once something is released as OGC, it cannot later be claimed as PI. This change still feels a bit squishy, frankly -- (a) "d20" doesn't exist at the current time as a trademark, unlike everything else asserted as PI; (b) it's not clear that a distinction of "sometimes trademark/ sometimes not" can be made in the same body of work for a single word; and (c) even if it removes a clear-cut contradiction, it's now at best a wierd redundancy, since any trademark is already unusable per Section 7. I'm forced to categorize this whole event as "WOTC adding uncertainty to the market". [/QUOTE]

Verification