On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 03:23:45PM +0000, Faustus von Goethe 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).
[...]
> 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.
>
> (Not trying to trash you or challenge you, just trying to figure out
> where/if my interpretation of the OGL is wrong in this situation.)
>
> Incidently, this is one from the "conspiracy theorists" corner, as this
> particular provision of the OGL was one that I could not figure out the
> rationale for - the ONLY reason I could figure for its existence was to
> prevent just this situation - to prevent OTHER COMPANIES from profiting
> (through network effects) from WotC contributions. (or from content from ANY
> OTHER contributor, to be fair.)
Quite the contrary. The limitation ensures that ALL COMPANIES may profit
from the contributions of WotC, and from the contributions of ALL OTHER
contributors. That is, the game system is only open if it remains open
as new contributions are added. If every company that uses D20 also
has to comply with the RR license (for names), then RR has effectively
added a new condition to the contract. Eventually those conditions
build up, and topple the system.
If RR wants their names to be widely used, they should contribute them
under the original terms. Otherwise contribute anything they are willing
under the original terms, we'll make up new names to replace the old
ones, and the only widely used set of names will be ours (through the
very same network effects previously mentioned.)
All IMHO of course, but I have been working on GPL'd projects for the
last four years, so I've been through all of these arguments before.
Cheers,
-kls
