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="Wicht" data-source="post: 6527990" data-attributes="member: 221">IANAL. But...After consideration, I see where you are coming from with your view of the derivative works but I still think the slightly looser interpretation is the better one, because, 1) the stated need to explicitly state what content is open and what is not implies the possibility that it might not all be open, and 2) we have 15 years now of practice in publishers accepting the looser interpretation without challenge.I do not know that the OGL has been adjudicated, like you I am not aware of any such challenge. Generally everyone has played nice with it and used it in the spirit it was intended (with WotC being the primary exception; go figure). An actual judge, I am well aware, is free to overthrow my understanding of the license. Until then, however, I am happy to keep doing it the way it has been understood to be done. I don't have Mystic Secrets, but I do have Arcana Evolved and there are some similar things in that, especially in chapters six, seven, and eight in which, as I read the declaration, any equipment already in the SRD is open and any equipment not in the SRD is closed, likewise with new magic rules. I assume Monte Cooke and his people had decent legal advise when they drew up their declaration, as it reads fairly professionally, which makes me think their lawyer(s), whoever they were, agreed with the looser interpretation. I also seem to recollect that Clark Peterson had the same understanding, and though its been years, I do know a lot of my understanding of the OGL came from reading his comments on it.Without seeing the actual content of Mystic Secrets, I don't want to comment on the appropriateness of the application in that particular books. But if its truly built upon OGC then in my opinion, the right thing to do is make it OGC.  I would add, for what its worth, that I think publishers who try to play tight with their content when using the OGL don't actually do themselves any favors. It creates no good will among designers, for one thing; the more content made open, the better for everyone, including the publisher (and I am thankful Paizo agrees with me on this). Secondly, its often pointless. Rituals, for instance, were made OGC in 2000 in Relics and Rituals iirc. Trying to close the barn door after the horses are loose is an exercise in futility.</blockquote>

Verification