From: "Faustus von Goethe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There is one critical issue here - the one that is in everybody's mind who
> knows ANYTHING about open source software. When Linus wrote Linux, he
> didn't create a cryptic "L20" license and he doesn't plan to sue everybody
> who puts "This Product Is Designed to Run on Linux" on the box of their
> product.
There are Linux distributions with restricted trademarks that are being
enforced. Red Hat is one of them; and there will be more as that business
model proves itself viable.
You can't take the Red Hat CD-ROM image, make a bunch of duplicates, and
sell it in a box with the trademarked Red Hat logo and other Red Hat
trademarks; even though you can take that CD-ROM image and distribute it
without those trademarks.
That's >exactly< the same situation as the D20 System Trademarks vs. Open
Gaming.
> So the question from the "Open" community is, "Why can't I put 'This
Product > is Designed to Run With D&D' on the cover of my box?" Where's the
damage.
> How is Wizards' hurt?
Because the value of the brand is larger than the value of the game. The
value of the brand is our representation to the customer that the contents
of the package stand up to a certain level of quality, conform to certain
internal standards, and represent a product that Wizards of the Coast is
willing to stand behind. "Dungeons & Dragons" means a carefully crafted
brand image of graphics, tone, style, content, story and character.
Allowing anyone who wishes to use that brand removes that value from the
customer and from WotC.
> Based on what I have been hearing on other boards I think you will never
get > beyond the perception in the community (correct or incorrect) that you
are
> pulling a fast one until and unless you make that possible.
I think that six months to a year into the Open Gaming environment these
concerns will be the baliwick of the conspiracy theorists and the people
actually publishing and creating D20/Open Gaming products will be proof
enough that those theories and concerns are baseless.
Passing from theory to practice is going to answer more questions and
allieviate more concerns than any amount of debate about the theory.
> From the perspective of the uninitiated, you seem to be protecting what
you
> consider to be valuable, and giving away what you consider to be
worthless.
We're about to give away leverage that TSR and WotC have used for a quarter
century to defend our market - the threat of coordinated legal action
against those who clone the basic game system. The value of that threat
runs into the tens of millions of dollars when you examine the opportunity
costs lost through those twenty five years.
There is much gnashing of teeth and wailing about whether that threat is
groundless or whether we could prevail in court; but the reality of the
situation is that real publishers who spend real money and make real
products have consistently failed to cross that threshold because the threat
was sufficient to deter them.
Anyone who thinks that giving up the protection via threat of litigation for
the D&D game mechanics has "no value" is insane.
> So how about it? Address it directly. Sun said to Microsoft "You can't
put > 'Designed to Run With Java' on the outside of your box."
No. No. No. No. No.
Sun said to Microsoft: We own the copyrights and the patent to this
computer language and concept. We're going to convince your customers that
it has value and should be in your browser. If you don't put it in your
browser, someone else's browser will become more popular than yours and
you'll lose your market dominance and perhaps your entire software monopoly.
Here's a restrictive license that you must sign to get access to this
technology.
This is akin to holding a gun to someone's head and demanding their wallet -
it's a credible threat backed up with an "out" in the form of an agreement
to a certain type of behavior.
If Sun had said "here's this free software released under the GPL that we
think you should put in your browser. Make whatever changes you want, but
be aware that other people will be free to use those changes too. Oh, and
by the way, we've got this Java logo registered as a trademark, and if you
want to use that logo you'll have to agree to some restrictions to how you
use the software" they would have been in a much weaker position to
"control" Java, but it might actually have become a successful market factor
instead of an intellectual curiosity and the value to Sun might have been
tremendously bigger.
> Sun said to Microsoft and the world "You can't put 'Designed to Run With
> Java' on the outside of your box." For that they are ostracized by the
open > source community.
No. They're ostracized >because they didn't make Java Open Source<.
> Unless you can honestly and openly answer the question "Why CAN'T I put
> 'Designed to work with Dungeons and Dragons' on the box?"
1) Because you're not us, and >we< define what "Dungeons & Dragons" means;
and that control of the >brand< not the game is what makes the >brand<
strong and healthy
2) Because consumers have a right to expect a consistency in stuff labeled
"D&D" that cannot be maintained if anyone can use that logo on anything they
wish
3) Because "Dungeons & Dragons" has a value outside of the RPG in software,
books, mass media and other areas from which we as a company derive revenue
and profit and our ability to do so would be compromised by a free and
unrestricted use of the brand identity
Ryan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
