Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yaarel" data-source="post: 7691306" data-attributes="member: 58172">I appreciate your various comments, Nellisir.The point of the example of the spell wasnt so much to prevent it from becoming Open content. But concerns about plagiarizing the SRD5, by failing to ‘clearly’ attribute entangled/blended/modified derivative material, that derives from the SRD5. I know the OGL explicitly allows derivation and modification, but that word ‘clearly’ concerned me because derivative material is anything except clear. Where the source material ends and the new creative material begins is normally inherently unclear.In these discussions, the ‘clearest’ way to attribute Open Content for any product, is to also create a separate SRD-like document that lists all of the rules that the product uses. That way, the new content that is intended for Open use is clearly spelled out for others to reuse without worries. Also, comparing the new SRD-like document with the source SRD5 document makes it clear which terms are being used and how they are being modified.Pathfinder does something like this via their PF SRD, spelling out Open Content in the clearest way possible. I havent read it yet, but Morris says he does something similar, by continually adding Open Content to a section of this website. Comparing the PF SRD with the 3e d20 SRD makes it ‘clear’ what Pathfinder is using and how - without requiring ten million footnotes.</blockquote>