On 3 Oct 00, Ryan scribbled a note about [ogf-d20-l] D20 System Trademark Li:
> I welcome any and all comment and input.
>
> ==================================
>
> Here are my expanded thoughts about the D20 trademark license:
>
> First, my objective is to create a carrot and a stick for game publishers.
I like this idea....
> I believe that the "carrot" can consist of the rights to use the following
> materials:
>
> The D20 System logo
> Indicate compatibility with the D20 System
> (*)A collection of monster names and descriptions
> (*)A collection of magic items and descriptions
> (*)A collection of proprietary characters and descriptions
> Permission to indicate the need to use the core D&D rulebooks (but not
> permission to suggest that the material is authorized D&D material)
>
Would this include permissions to reference those rulebooks?
Such as saying "refer to the chapter on Combat Actions in the
Players's Handbook(TM)" or "see the description of <insert spell
name> in the Player's Handbook"
> In addition, the license should require the publisher to use a given set
> of defined game terms without modification. The publisher could opt not
> to use one of those terms and substitute a new term in its place, but
> can't redefine a term we reserve.
>
> For example, if "Strength" is a defined term, a publisher shouldn't be
> able to redefine what "Strength" means in the game. They could opt to not
> use "Strength", and instead create a new term "Physical Power" with a new
> definition if they want to.
>
We can't redefine terms/stats, but we can replace them totally?
What about adding additional ones (with an attendant new
definition) without a problem? Thus a person could decline to use
any of the normal six stats, and define a whole new set of stats
with new definitions?
What happens if several of these new stats are calculated stats?
Would the process of describing how to figure these calculated
stats break the no character generation rules?
> Also, the license should require the use of Open Game Content and the use
> of the Open Game License. I suggest that we impose a requirement that at
> a minimum, 10% of the text in a product bearing the D20 trademarks consist
> of Open Game content.
>
While I agree with the requirement of OGL content, Wouldn't that
10% rules cause some OGL/d20 material not to fit the definition,
and thus not be eligile. For example, I create my own campaign
setting. I have a product that counts out to 100 pages. According
to this rule, if I do not have at least 10 page of OGL content, I
cannot use the d20 logo. Perhaps all the actual system information
takes up only 5 pages. This would disqualify my product, yet
according to all other tests, it would pass.
> And a final issue, the license should restrict the ability of a publisher
> to create computer software. I envision a time when we will want to relax
> this requirement, but I think that we should tackle that problem in the
> future.
>
You might possibly want to open this up to utilities for such things
as character generation (possibly requiring it to be freeware - and
yes, I know about MasterTools, but they have a completely
seperate contract with WOTC - different animal altogether), or
combat tracking utilities, etc.....
> For the terms of the license itself, this is what I would like to
> accomplish:
>
Sounds good to me
> ============================
>
> (*) After reviewing the PHB, DMG and MM, I have determined that there are
> a number of such items that are not necessary to support the basic mission
> of using the D20 System as an Open Game.
>
> Example: A generic +1 sword is something that should be in the D20 system
> reference document. The Hand and the Eye of Vecna should not be. To get
> the rights to use the Hand and the Eye, you will have to agree to the
> terms of the D20 System Trademark license.
>
The same should apply to certain spell names (like the Bigby's
spells), they should be renamed in the SRD to a more generic
name, and then the STL can allow the use of the more commonly
known name.
> Something which is drawn from common myths and legends or is clearly a D&D
> version of a public domain concept should be in the D20SRD. Things that
> are unique to D&D and are original to the game should not necessarily be.
>
> After my cursory review, I suspect that about 30% of the monsters in the
> Monster Manual, and a similar number of magic items in the Dungeon
> Master's Guide fall into this category.
>
> The default pantheon in the PHB falls into the same category (although
> there are gods in that pantheon that are public domain names, their holy
> symbols and descriptive material is not).
>
Right, the name may be public domain, but WOTC's interpretation
is not.
*************************
********TANSTAAFL********
*************************
Rasyr (Tim Dugger)
E-Mail:
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Work:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WebPage: http://www.rpghost.com/rasyr/
Last updated: October 6, 1999
