Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [fudgecommunity] Re: Fudging Mythic

Expand Messages
  • thecastlekeeper
    Actually, that s incorrect. They have an SRD document and an OGL for that 4e SRD. There isn t anything in the 4e SRD except some terms, like AC and the like.
    Message 1 of 80 , Apr 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Actually, that's incorrect. They have an SRD document and an OGL for that 4e SRD. There isn't anything in the 4e SRD except some terms, like AC and the like. You can download them off WOTC's website. Goodman isn't using ant license, and they had an article on RPG Now to that effect.

      Products like OSRIC, and Basic Fantasy RPG, aren't being sued by WOTC because they can't prove they are a copyright or trade mark violation; there is no copyrightable material or trademarks in them.

      You need not use an OGL or GNU for Game mechanics. You can't copyright game mechanics. Computer software, literature, "flavor text", etc. Is a differwnt story. That IS copyrightable.

      Rod



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Jonathan M. Thompson <thompsonjm@...>
      Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 11:48 AM
      To: fudgecommunity@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [fudgecommunity] Re: Fudging Mythic

      That might be because 4e D&D is not an OGL product, never has been and never will be. Its covered under a completely different license which Goodman has agreed to.

      Jonathan M. Thompson

      -----Original Message-----
      From: thecastlekeeper <TheCastleKeeper@...>
      Sender: fudgecommunity@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:46:06
      To: <fudgecommunity@yahoogroups.com>
      Reply-To: fudgecommunity@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [fudgecommunity] Re: Fudging Mythic

      Goodman games has published a number of "4th Edition Compatable" modules, and didn't have WOTC's permission to do so, and didn't include an OGL. And nothing has come of it, because you can't copyright a game system. Use whatever license or lack thereof you want, just don't reproduce written content ouside of decription of the system.

      Rod


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mike Harvey <gm@...>
      Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:16 AM
      To: fudgecommunity@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [fudgecommunity] Re: Fudging Mythic

      Jonathan M. Thompson wrote:
      > The OGL must still be included and open content defined

      Yes I *believe* the OGL is a "viral" (contagious) license like the GPL
      which means it must be applied to everything it touches. This greatly
      restricts what you can combine it with -- essentially only licenses
      that are compatible with the terms of the OGL.

      And licenses can never be removed. If you combine three sources with
      three different licenses, then the resulting work must be governed by
      (at least) all three of those licenses. Where I work, we have one
      product that is governed by something like 70+ different distinct
      licenses. Insane.




      ------------------------------------

      --> Please visit the Fudge Community Yahoo Group home page at http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fudgecommunity to search the archives, upload or download files, and more! Note: No attachments are allowed on the fudgecommunity@yahoogroups.com email list, please upload any attachments to the Files section instead. Thank you! <--Yahoo! Groups Links







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      ------------------------------------

      --> Please visit the Fudge Community Yahoo Group home page at http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fudgecommunity to search the archives, upload or download files, and more! Note: No attachments are allowed on the fudgecommunity@yahoogroups.com email list, please upload any attachments to the Files section instead. Thank you! <--Yahoo! Groups Links
    • John Rudd
      ... Actually, my impression of the fudge community (meaning this list , since that s what Patrick was talking about) is exactly the opposite: Mostly GMs, and
      Message 80 of 80 , Apr 4, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 01:56, Darren Hill <darren0hill@...> wrote:
        > From: Patrick Benson - SinisterForces
        > <<But is that enough? Love for something by itself does not nurture it.
        > Perhaps we are a community, but are we a good one? Where are the products?
        > Not just the products for sale, but the resources and free materials that
        > are enabling others to create new Fudge products? I am not seeing them.>>
        >
        > We are a community of fans of fudge. Most fans of fudge (as with most fans
        > of most games) are players (including GMs), not designers. I don't know any
        > other rpg community (and I have belonged to many) where the strength of the
        > community is measured by how many products they publish. It's kind of a
        > bizarre idea to me.
        >

        Actually, my impression of the fudge community (meaning "this list",
        since that's what Patrick was talking about) is exactly the opposite:

        Mostly GMs, and BY FAR, mostly people using it as building-blocks for
        their own system/rules (ie. designers).

        I rarely see player talk here, and I rarely see discussions that
        heavily lean toward the free-form approach*. Most of the places I've
        seen the free-form approach talked about are "don't forget, Fudge is
        NOT just building-blocks to build another system, you can play it
        directly" reminders. Usually (at last, back in the phoenix days) from
        me. And I haven't said that in a long time.


        (* and, by that, I mean: Fudge everything, you don't need to develop
        new rules to put on top of basic-Fudge, dice-variations, etc. --
        EVERYTHING you need, except literal setting material, is in the
        nutshell)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.