Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="reiella" data-source="post: 1345930" data-attributes="member: 160">Problem comes with the phrasing of the Trademark and the Compatibility clause.From how I read it, it implies you cannot claim compatibility of any sort without an appropiate extended license.Also intent is extremely easy to prove, there are a number of typo references in EQRPG products that refer to Core rulebooks I or the D&amp;D player's handbook page numbers :x.That, and as mentioned, there are 3rd editions of OTHER FRPGs than D&amp;D, and the mechanical simularity exists really only with D&amp;D.Ultimately, it's edgy grounds that WotC hasn't expressed any public interest/comment about as yet, so most likly OK for the most part.&nbsp; Of course, the legality of a virus license in the first place is questionable (the virus license portions of the GPL have actually been thrown out of court ... before the d20STL/OGL licenses came about).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="reiella, post: 1345930, member: 160"] Problem comes with the phrasing of the Trademark and the Compatibility clause. From how I read it, it implies you cannot claim compatibility of any sort without an appropiate extended license. Also intent is extremely easy to prove, there are a number of typo references in EQRPG products that refer to Core rulebooks I or the D&D player's handbook page numbers :x. That, and as mentioned, there are 3rd editions of OTHER FRPGs than D&D, and the mechanical simularity exists really only with D&D. Ultimately, it's edgy grounds that WotC hasn't expressed any public interest/comment about as yet, so most likly OK for the most part. Of course, the legality of a virus license in the first place is questionable (the virus license portions of the GPL have actually been thrown out of court ... before the d20STL/OGL licenses came about). [/QUOTE]

Verification