[With apologies for the cross-posting]
>From: "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Faustus von Goethe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > ... 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.
[FAUST REPLIES]
I fear from reading your response that you are missing the point. Equating
WotC to Red Hat is illogical. WotC is the "Linus" in this industry (the
creator and holder of the Trademark), not the "Red Hat" (a competitor).
WotC is initiating and championing the OGL and will be the first company to
release OGL content.
Now, WotC and the OGL could only have a DIRECT comparison to Red Hat *IF*
Linus were to go to work for Redhat, THEN started telling everybody that
they could no longer use the "Linux" name or the Penguin - that only Red Hat
would have that right, THEN created an "L20" license that said that people
could not advertize "Linux" compatibility.
WotC's role in the OGL directly parallels Linus's in the Linux movement.
The SRD seems to conceptually parallel the Linux kernel (op. system).
WotC has no comparison to Red Hat. Red Hat is a competitor in a competetive
industry. WotC is in a position of market dominance so powerful that
effectively they have no competition.
A PARALLEL:
What the naysayers are upset about is that what you are doing is just as if
MICROSOFT suddenly said - OK, our core OS code is now open source. You can
copy it, add to it and give it away all you want. You can also use parts of
it to create software that will run on Windows.
You just can't *EVER* use the word Windows or TELL ANYBODY (in advertizing
or on the product) that your software will run on Windows.
Sure that Windows operating system software has value to Microsoft - but
stripped away from the trademark it has little or no value to anyone else -
it might as well be scrap.
Consumers are left standing in the store, looking at a box with an
unfamiliar or unclear logo on it, scratching their heads and saying "Will
this run on my machine?"
EXAMPLE:
Now lets say I wrote a d20 gaming product that will mesh tightly with D&D
core products and that was - (for the sake of discussion) simply amazing.
Lets say the best gaming setting ever produced.
A market with an efficient communications system would overcome the fact
that I did not have the trademark for the most popular game - and I could
not tell *anybody* that my incredible product would work with D&D. Why -
because the reviewers in the magazines and the people at the stores, and the
folks in the hobby clubs would pass the word around.
But in the current RPG gaming market that will not work. Why? Because:
WotC owns the magazines. (At least the ones with the circulation.)
WotC owns the the national hobby clubs.
WotC is positioning itself to own an increasing number of the gaming stores.
Even on my website I could not IMPLY the D&D connection. There is even a
legal question waiting in the wings on whether submitting my site to search
engines with the D&D as a "search term" would constitute trademark
violation. So I have the best product ever written for D&D and ...
NOBODY KNOWS ...
... and by law I am not allowed to tell them. You could SUE ME if I tell
them. You could SUE ME if I imply it too openly. The reality of it is that
you could sue me if OTHER PEOPLE started saying it and I didn't act to stop
them.
Now you have repeatedly said that your goals parallel those of the Open
Software Foundation. Among which perhaps the paramount goal is to foster
innovation in the industry. The point that the so called "radicals" are
making is that they don't see haw the OGL + D20 achieves that objective...
The reality of it is (from the point of view of an outsider) that you ARE
the "Linus" of this industry, NOT the Red Hat, and you own both the "Linux"
and the "Penguin" - and you are not sharing.
"Maintaining Consistency" is not really a valid argument. This is obvious
from the software market. The market takes care of quality - BAD linux
implementations do not last long.
"Maintaining Consistency" of storyline doen't require controlling the "D&D"
trademark - just the "Forgotten Realms", "Greyhawk", etc.
Mayfair games has used their little red "compatible with AD&D" label for
years and I do not believe from all I have read and from all the folks I
have talked with that this has harmed the Trademark in any way. If
anything, sales were better for TSR as a result.
So I repeat the question ... Why not let people use that little red label?
Faust
Check out the OGL <unofficial> FAQ at:
http://www.earth1066.com/D20FAQ.htm
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
