View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
Seriously.

Every time anyone asks, Cryptic employees contradicts themselves and the EULA and make the restrictions tighter and tighter.

I understand not showing actors. I understand being limited to referencing ST 1-10 and the live action shows.

But I SWEAR that NOT ONCE has a EULA clarification led to an expansion of Foundry author rights. EVERY SINGLE TIME has taken something that would have been permissible that was once stated as permissible and taken it back, to a point where it's increasingly difficult to position our original stories as an expansion and expression of the Star Trek IP.

There is no good reason that we can't use an established ship name based on the EULA. None. But because Wishstone is not a lawyer, every request for a clarification will err on the side of "don't do it."

If I wanted to tell original sci-fi stories, I'd be doing it for a paycheck. The appeal of the Foundry is that I can tell STAR TREK stories.

We can't use established characters, established ships... Technically Klingonese is a EULA violation on multiple levels (although I haven't seen this pointed out by Cryptic yet). And if we can't use the ships, how long before we get told we can't use the DS9 interior AS DS9 and not some generic Nor? Or that we can't show Klingons?

My advice: stop asking for clarifications. Ticket anything you think is a violation, make what you want to make as you read the EULA, and let the ticketing system sort it out. Because asking will always result in a "No" unless Cryptic hires an intellectual property lawyer as a community rep, who is actually qualified to interpret the EULA and make rulings.