SRD Competition Winners

[Nifelhein]

Maybe you checked it before Sage uploaded the complete version, or you had the older version in your cache or something.

It seems so, I use it ll the time I need, even downloaded it and will burn CDs with it for my players, only one will have the 3.5 Books, so the others can have a web-book.

 

[I'm A Banana]

As far as the legal thing, woodelf, you are 'pushing the boudaries' a smidge. Specifically, you can't include character generation rules...note that the SRD doesn't really mention XP, level advancement, when you get feats, how to roll ability scores, etc.

That is the legal requirement for using the d20 logo and the "d20 system" copyrights. Otherwise, you can't legally claim your thing to be part of the d20 system or use the d20 logo.

How Monte did it was he made AU OGL, not d20. Neither the d20 system nor the d20 logo appears on AU products. The back does claim that it's compatible with "the 3rd edition and Revised 3rd Edition rules". No D&D. No d20. No copyright problems. It could be the third edition of Bunnies and Burrows for all copyright is concerned. And even then, Monte retained feat names and spell names as non-OGL...specifically BECAUSE he includes rules for character generation and advancement.

You can't use "d20" if you're presenting character generation rules or advancement rules, effectively. You can make it OGL....but in the case of the SRD, duh.

I mean, IANAL, but this is my understanding. Even if your rules are different from the PHB's, simply including them would be enough to exclude you from using the d20 logo or mentioning the d20 system...I could always be wrong, though.

 

[Sage]

It seems so, I use it ll the time I need, even downloaded it and will burn CDs with it for my players, only one will have the 3.5 Books, so the others can have a web-book.

You know, the zip file (without the pictures) can be on a standard diskette

Sage

 

[Nifelhein]

Oh, I already knew that, but the CD will have many other things in it that will certainly require much more space, half of it is already full...

But that is a good thing too!

 

[woodelf]

As far as the legal thing, woodelf, you are 'pushing the boudaries' a smidge. Specifically, you can't include character generation rules...note that the SRD doesn't really mention XP, level advancement, when you get feats, how to roll ability scores, etc.

That is the legal requirement for using the d20 logo and the "d20 system" copyrights. Otherwise, you can't legally claim your thing to be part of the d20 system or use the d20 logo.

[snip]
You can't use "d20" if you're presenting character generation rules or advancement rules, effectively. You can make it OGL....but in the case of the SRD, duh.

I mean, IANAL, but this is my understanding. Even if your rules are different from the PHB's, simply including them would be enough to exclude you from using the d20 logo or mentioning the d20 system...I could always be wrong, though.

Um, where have i used "D20 System", the D20 System logo, "D&D", "Dungeons & Dragons", or any other PI term or trademark in my "D20SRD(3.5)"? My work *is* WotC OGL-only, without the D20STL. I have very carefully *not* claimed my work is part of the D20 System. The closest i've come is that they *might* be able to make an argument that titling it "D20SRD(3.5)" is "using "D20" as a trademark. Except that (1) i'm not and (2) i'm willing to go to court to prove that nobody can own the term "d20" in an RPG context, in any case. Since i'm *not* using the D20STL, i'm merely restricted from using a trademark to indicate "compatibility or co-adabtability"--"d20" isn't a registered trademark--and from using PI--and i'm not using any PI. Actually, the one thing i'm doing that probably *is* breaking the license is including the revised D20SRD's PI declaration, since i'm not supposed to include those words in my work. But i'm breaking the license in WotC's favor [without that reproduced PI declaration, it is *really* easy for people to circumvent it through claiming ignorance, by just using my work], so i'd be more than happy to remove it (and may do so anyway, when i finish polishing everything).

How Monte did it was he made AU OGL, not d20. Neither the d20 system nor the d20 logo appears on AU products. The back does claim that it's compatible with "the 3rd edition and Revised 3rd Edition rules". No D&D. No d20. No copyright problems. It could be the third edition of Bunnies and Burrows for all copyright is concerned. And even then, Monte retained feat names and spell names as non-OGL...specifically BECAUSE he includes rules for character generation and advancement.

Huh? How is making feat names PI [n.b.: they're PI, and thus governed by the WotC OGL, rather than closed content which may or may not be governed by the WotC OGL] in any way related to the decision to include rules for chargen/advancement [both of which are OGC]? I'm completely missing the connection.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Um, where have i used "D20 System", the D20 System logo, "D&D", "Dungeons & Dragons", or any other PI term or trademark in my "D20SRD(3.5)"?

Not sayin' ya are. Just laying down the general idea as I have them...and yeah, through a feat of semantics, I think you've avoided any possible legal trouble (not that WotC would really want to put the time and effort into leaping upon you in most likelihoods anyway, but still). Just saying that the 'envelope' is being pushed....clearly, the "d20" is a reference to the "d20 system," and the term "SRD" seems to be in reference to the "d20 system System Reference Document".....that's pushing the envelope, even if there's no actual legal violation per se, isn't it?

Huh? How is making feat names PI [n.b.: they're PI, and thus governed by the WotC OGL, rather than closed content which may or may not be governed by the WotC OGL] in any way related to the decision to include rules for chargen/advancement [both of which are OGC]? I'm completely missing the connection.

Just an example of how carefully Monte used the OGL...no SRD references, no "d20" references....it's quite a bit farther from the envelope than your own.

Not that I'm decrying you or anything....certainly not. Just saying that there's quite a difference between AU and something called "D20SRD(3.5)." One is clearly not a violation. The other may not be a violation, but it's certainly not as clear-cut.

 

[woodelf]

There were some nice entries. Stefenh's detailed index in awesome. And Woodelf's doc is beautiful (got my vote for best print version)

Some day I'd like to see Drawmack's version too.

PS

I'd like to let Storminator, and anyone else who liked my design decisions, know that i've finally finished up D20SRD(3.5). Sorry for the delay--Sept turned out to be much busier than usual. Well, and i finished them more than a week ago, but had some computer troubles and a lack of time to get them uploaded. Those of you who complained about the lack of [PDF] bookmarking in the incomplete version will, i trust, be more than satisfied by the final docs--the monsters are even pseudo-indexed via the bookmarks. You can find them on our webpage: http://www.tiltingatwindmills.net , go to the "Get Free Stuff" page. And while you're there, feel free to check out some of our other giveaways (hint, hint).

I've striven to make these a complete replacement for the core rulebooks, whether for gaming, reference, or reuse, so i'll gladly take any feedback/criticism on them. (Though, in all honesty, corrections are more likely to show up in the *next* SRD i format, rather than going back and fixing this one, if the change is significant.)

 

[woodelf]

Not sayin' ya are. Just laying down the general idea as I have them...and yeah, through a feat of semantics, I think you've avoided any possible legal trouble (not that WotC would really want to put the time and effort into leaping upon you in most likelihoods anyway, but still). Just saying that the 'envelope' is being pushed....clearly, the "d20" is a reference to the "d20 system," and the term "SRD" seems to be in reference to the "d20 system System Reference Document".....that's pushing the envelope, even if there's no actual legal violation per se, isn't it?

Well, if you're gonna pick nits, it is not the "D20 System System Reference Document". In fact, that is precisely *why* i've chosen to title my work as i have. Let me 'splain: The official title for the documents WotC released is "System Reference Document". There is nothing in the title that actually tells you what is in the work. They chose a simple broad descriptive that colud describe anything--there is no qualifier telling you *which* system this is a reference for. It's like naming a car model "Car"--it's either pointless or presumptious. (And, before someone brings up "le Car", note that it is properly referred to as the "Renault le Car"--if this were the "Wizards of the Coast System Reference Document," i'd be placated.) Personally i suspect presumption: it's the same reasoning that leads to MS naming their product "Word" (though, formally, at least that is "Microsoft Word"): an attempt to co-opt the mindshare for the entire product category by choosing a generic name. This gives the implication that this is "THE" System Reference Document, and all others are derivatives or knock-offs, and secondary in value in any case. Historical order notwithstanding, it is merely the SRD for a particular system, and it should be properly titled/labeled as such. The WotC OGL (another item that needs a specfic name), is availabel for use for any game, not just D20 System games, so anything released under it, even the very first thing released under it [and, due to the delay in releasing the D20SRD and the gentleperson's agreement, it was far from the first thing, anyway], should have a uniquely-descriptive name. While popular culture often shortens the name of the most popular product in a category to what really is a generic descriptive, the company should still be obligated to give their product a unique name. Especially if they want trademark protection. [I'm convinced that the only way WotC got a registered trademark on "D20 System" was through ignorance of the RPG world on the USPTO's part: normally, both simple descriptives and common words are forbidden from trademark status.]

-----

{earlier post}
How Monte did it was he made AU OGL, not d20. Neither the d20 system nor the d20 logo appears on AU products. The back does claim that it's compatible with "the 3rd edition and Revised 3rd Edition rules". No D&D. No d20. No copyright problems. It could be the third edition of Bunnies and Burrows for all copyright is concerned. And even then, Monte retained feat names and spell names as non-OGL...specifically BECAUSE he includes rules for character generation and advancement.

{resume current post}
Just an example of how carefully Monte used the OGL...no SRD references, no "d20" references....it's quite a bit farther from the envelope than your own.

I'm still not understanding you. How is designating feat and spell names as PI "carefully" using the WotC OGL? If anything, the choice to PI some pretty generic words ("stomp", anyone?) strikes me as really pushing the bounds of what the WotC OGL is intended to do. And, even if i make a simple identity substitution so that your sentence reads "...Monte retained feat names and spell names as non-OGL["non-OGC"?]...specifically BECAUSE he was going to forgo the D20 Logo", i still don't get it. Could you please explain the connection again in some other manner--perhaps i'm obtuse?

 

[kreynolds]

Hey, whatever happened to Cergorach, kreynolds and Drawmack? Did they not enter a submission, or did they just prefer not to have their entry posted?

I got really busy with "life". Work got a bit chaotic, and I moved around September. Took a while to get ready for the latter (I had 5 years of house cleaning to catch up on!). My CotSQ game also skyrocketed in activity (demanding a lot of attention to campaign development), as well as the game I'm currently playing in. Oh, and I fell in love.

The latter just blindsided me, caught me completely off-guard.

I know Cergorach and kreynolds had some bitchin' demo pages up very early on:

Wow. Thanks.

If I get the time, I might finish it one day. I'd like to, anyway.

kreynolds' demo

Unfortunately, the link goes nowhere. When I moved, I didn't transfer my ISP account, so I don't have webspace anymore. I'll be registering a domain soon though, so I should have the webspace problem solved then. I still have my FTP server though, so I can always use that until the domain is ready.

Thanks for the nice comments, Conaill.