Date: Sat 01 Nov 1997 - 07:17:46 EET
>> PLEASE NOTE BELOW MY CHAT WITH TAHGC. Apparently it seems that, if
>> the authors were willing, RQ:AiG could be put up "en web" IF, say,
>> we replaced "RuneQuest" with "BananaPeel" and "RQ" with "BP"
>I'm sure you're deluding yourself. Avalon Hill still own the RQ3 game
>system; if RQ4 is a recognisable outgrowth of RQ3 (and it was last
>time I looked), you could be getting yourself into big trouble by
>posting it to the Web. Posting the work "without RuneQuest referen-
>ces" isn't simply a matter of removing the word "RuneQuest" from
>And, with Chaosium limbering up for Issaries, Inc., it's possible
>they won't want an unofficial freeware Gloranthan RPG to be distri-
>buted just now. (I think we're lucky to have "PenDragon Pass"!).
Hmm, I would appreciate someone emailing me (i.e. not on-list) what, then,
WOULD be the definition of "posting without RQ references" - I mean, here
we have it in writing from TAHGC. The possiblity of coming up with legal
conformance to this seems less remote to me than it apparently does to Nick.
My whole point? I'd like to get whatever interesting material there was
planned for this OUT of the TAHGC dustbins and available. That's all. The
TAHGC email seems to indicate that they wouldn't have a problem with this
in certain contexts. Could someone (preferably with legal knowledge)
please clarify this for me?
- -Steve (email@example.com)
or at work (Steve_Lieb@lepmsp.com)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 21:35:02 EEST