Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 1036387" data-attributes="member: 5">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-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.</blockquote>

Verification