>From: Kal Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[FAUST SAID - ON 8 APRIL 2000]
> > These will be the "words" that WotC will reserve as their Trademarks,
>and
> > will (presumably) spend gobs of money to fight in court to protect.
>This is...
>
>I believe the original posting stating that these are words WotC
>will reserve as trademarks is erroneous and the implications to
>D20STL or OGL developers are not as implied by your posting.
Yes. That post was nearly a month ago & based on the replies that ensued I
don't think even WotC had a clear idea of what they were going to have on
the "restricted words" list. You should understand that these documents we
are referring to have yet to be written.
> > If, on the other hand, the LIST is very restrictive and does include
>such
> > words, then it will be against your better interests to even develop in
>the
> > D20 system - as WotC will effectively own ALL of it - or be able to
>screw
> > you in court for a long time if they don;t like you.
>
>Things like "Hit Points" and "Armor Class" will be in the list and
>it will not be a negative to people who develop for the D20STL. In
>fact, it will be a positive to have enforced consistent terminology
>in D20STL material.
I agree... But keep in mind that TSR has sued people over the phrase "Hit
Points" - or so I have been told...
>Let's admit when a mistake has been made.
I also was a relative newcomer to the list at the time and was expressing my
idea of what the list would contain to try and see if it was accurate. It
was in fact, NOT. You need to understand the timing thing here - the more
recent e-mail from Ryan you quoted was the first time that this issue has
been clarified to this extent. For all we know, my comments of that time
and/or the ensuing discussion helped clarify in his mind that he DID NOT in
fact want to make the "Reserved Words" list Trademarked... It was my
original belief that the "Reserved" in "Reserved Words" was short for "All
Rights Reserved..."
>With regards to the FAQ:
>
>In A.14 of the FAQ, I would suggest that Richard Stallman would
>much rather be associated with the Free Software Foundation at
>www.fsf.org than www.opensource.org. From the Stallman interview at:
Very good point and I have had one comment to a similar effect so I shall
probably remove all reference to Mr. Stallman as he is really not germaine
to the discussion. I had included him just because Ryan had mentioned him
in one of his earlier interviews.
For that contribution you get your name on the "contributor's list" - sorry,
no T-shirt...
Faust
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
