On 9 Oct 00, Glenn scribbled a note about RE: [ogf-d20-l] D20 System Trademar:
> > On 6 Oct 00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re:
> > [ogf-d20-l] D20 System Trademar:
> > What I was referring to was the examples given by some, saying
>
Actually, I made the above comment, not FrogGod.
> Whoa, nellie! I've been following this thread closely, and I don't think
> anyone has said that they are actually going to insert filler material. In
> every case it was put forward as a hypothetical example of how "someone"
> could get around a percentage requirement in the license.
>
Nor did I say that somebody was actually going to do it. Note the
use of the word "examples" up in the first section.
> It seems to me that none of the participants here are really all that
> interested in abusing the license. What we ARE interested in is a license
> whose terms are clear and solid and that we can profitably do business
> under. Hypothesizing potential end-runs around the spirit of the license
> should be taken as an attempt to test the strength and clarity of the
> license, not as statements of intended approach.
>
Which was the whole purpose of my message.
> Saying that one "could" use filler text to get around the terms is not the
> same as saying that one "would" do so. The real concern, here, is that
> there are others out there who would do so, thus weakening the value of
> the d20 trademark to its beneficiaries.
>
Yup! This is sure to be something that WOTC will want to avoid
(the weakening of the Trademark).
*************************
********TANSTAAFL********
*************************
Rasyr (Tim Dugger)
E-Mail:
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Work:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WebPage: http://www.rpghost.com/rasyr/
Last updated: October 6, 1999
