Originally posted by Bendris Noulg at <http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=75351&page=1&pp=25>
There's a false assumption in this statement, however. For instance, does M&M worry about being seen as compatible? No, of course not. If anything, I enjoy the freedom of stating outright that a product [i]is not[/i] compatible but is still run on the same game engine.
You know, that raises an interesting question: what about claims of *non*-compatibility? If i put on my book "This game product is not compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd Edition." am i in the clear with the "no trademarks for compatibility/co-adaptability" clause? Assuming this is a true claim--i'm envisioning a game book that is derived from the D20SRD, but is sufficiently far removed that making it work with most other D20 System products would be arduous, at best. Thus, this would be a truth-in-advertising warning, so that those who recognized it as D20 System (such as by reading the Sec.15) wouldn't then just assume it was "same old, same old", get it home, and be frustrated with not being able to slot it into their Spycraft/Midnight/Greyhawk/whatever game.
Yes, i'm aware that this would also be sneaky backhanded advertising, using someone else's trademark to possibly get the customer's attention. But is it forbidden by the letter of the WotC OGL?
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/
"The box said "Requires Windows95 or better." So I bought a Mac. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
