At 07:23 AM 1/27/2001, you wrote:
>>From: Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>. . . as open game content, including the names (which is
>>handled by a seperate limited license contained in the
>>book itself).
>>
>>So d20 producers, feel free to use RR spells in your
>>products (pursuant to the license of course).
>
>Sounds cool, BUT what happened to:
>
>OGL #2. The License: . . . No other terms or conditions may be applied to
>any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
I suspect they are re-licesnding the non-OGL portions -- the 'Product
Identity' contained in the spell names, as opposed to the spell rules.
Much the same way Creature Collection OGLed the stat block, and the combat
abilities, but NOT the monster name or background information.
>UNLESS, you are calling ALL of the names "trademarks", and offering a
>license similar to the "D20" for their use. Seems like this wouldn't work
>- conceptually, I would REALLY have a problem with the notion of spell
>names as trademarks unless they contained proper names from published works.
>"Armor of Undeath" for instance, could never be a trademark.
If "Dungeons And Dragons" can, why not "Armor of Undeath"? MANY trademarks
contain only common words:"Apple Computer","Amazon", and "Transformers"
come to mind. ('Transformers' are common electrical equipment, after all,
and at least one person once posted in alt.toys.transformers looking to
bulk purchase small motors for their toy factory...)
