Talk:Firearm Sniper (3.5e Feat)
From D&D Wiki
Copyright Issues?[edit]
Green Dragon, what do you think? Fair use for foul call?--Dmilewski 06:20, 15 May 2007 (MDT)
- I don't own the PHB II, so how similar is the wording of this to the wording of the feat in the PHB II? --Green Dragon 16:13, 15 May 2007 (MDT)
- I own it, so I'll take a look. Even if it isn't like that, though, it would be assumed that it would be the same thing, as the muskets could be considered a exotic crossbow...but that's just me ^_^ -- Flession 18:45, 15 May 2007 (MDT)
- The wording is almost verbatim. I just happened to be researching a crossbow character, so I read that feat this morning. --Dmilewski 20:21, 15 May 2007 (MDT)
- Am I going to have to get rid of it? I will get rid of it if it is nessesary. If it is just the wording that needs to be changed, I will change it.--Pirate-Sorcerer
- The wording definitely needs to be changed. It is not part of fair use to relabel something and then redistribute it. Keep the feat, but change all of the wording. — Blue Dragon (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2007 (MDT)
- I have changed the wording of the feat, is it ok now?--Pirate-Sorcerer 22:01, 15 May 2007
- Is it more than 60% different (thats the plagiarism line, right?)? --Green Dragon 22:31, 29 August 2007 (MDT)
- Dunno. Why not add Template: Copyright Disclaimer just to be safe? I'll add it while I am here, but feel free to remove it if you think it is not needed or better off without it. --Sam Kay 05:03, 30 August 2007 (MDT)
- I have now reworded the feat even more, hopefully it will be enough to avoid copyright issues. Pirate-Sorcerer 18:18, 30 August 2007 (MDT)
- Okay... Can Template:Copyright Disclaimer be removed then? --Green Dragon 23:06, 30 August 2007 (MDT)
- Spose so. You could leave it on there just in case, but it doesn't really matter too much. --Sam Kay 06:49, 31 August 2007 (MDT)
- It's gone... --Green Dragon 21:34, 3 September 2007 (MDT)
