Original subject, I know. :)
Okay, here goes. I've been mulling this around in my head for a while
now and I *think* I've looked at every aspect of it. It's somewhat
long, so please bear with me.
The short comment: I believe section 3.1.2 in the d20 trademark license
is bad for everyone involved, Wizards of the Coast included.
Just so no one has to go look it up:
3.1.2. No Publication distributed under the terms of this License may
contain information explaining the effects on characters of earning
experience or advancing in "level" as that term is defined in the D20
System Reference Document v0.0.
Now, the reasoning:
First, I'm making some assumptions about WotC's motives here. First,
they want to grow the sales of the Players Handbook (and other core
books?). Second, they've figured out that D&D gaming material
(modules, etc) drive the sales figures of the PHB up. So, the
reasonable conclusion is to allow more people to produce such material
and drive the sales even higher.
However, they want to protect their interest, they don't want any
product to be able to take sales directly away from the PHB. So, the
decision to limit direct competitors to the PHB that can call themselves
"D20". That's my understanding (IANAL) of the purpose of that clause.
Also, I'm making the assumption that the Open Gaming Foundation will be
a non-profit separate from WotC and that they will own the D20
trademark. The former is stated plainly on the website.. the latter
makes sense, but may not be the case. I certainly hope it is.
It makes sense. On the surface.
If you think about it for a minute, it doesn't really stop a whole lot.
I can still publish a verbatim copy of the D20 reference document and
sell it at a profit. I just can't specifically say it's D20. I can
call it "a D20 workalike" without any trouble (IANAL, but the UNIX
trademark works this way).
So, what about the unintended (given the above assumptions) side
effects? Well, I can't publish a new class in a D20 module. I can't
even publish a new kit for an existing class. It really limits the
scope of what can be published under the D20 trademark to simple
adventures and some setting information.
Here's the part that hurts WotC...
In August, the PHB comes out and it has the D20 logo on it. It's the
only book of it's kind that can legally do that. All's good and fine
for WotC. But, what happens when D20 starts to change? When the
community starts adding their house rules to the defacto standard?
Tweaking things here and there.
****The second revision of the PHB can't include those changes and still
be called D20.****
The copyright of those changes are owned by someone else and under the
D20 license. As long as the trademark is owned by the OGF and WotC
doesn't have special treatment from them, they'd be breaking the D20
trademark license.
Is this the intent, or are my assumptions wrong?
--
-Otto.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
