Jason Lotito, (s)he say:
>> The biggest change we're going to be making is adding a clause that
>> basically prohibits anyone who uses Open Game Content from using another
>> company's trademarks on that product without permission. [..]
> So, for those of us who are not legal experts in anyway (me), you want
> to prevent someone from using the d20 logo or the D&D Logo on their
> product to say they are compatible and use that as a way to garner free
> advertising, persee (i.e. use the D&D Image to gain sales?)
>
> Also, while I used D&D in my example, you can insert any gaming system
> into that, I just chose D&D, well, because it is essentially the flag
> ship of this whole endeavor.
More specifically, the intent (as I read it) is to prevent people who -use-
Open Game Content from another product, but do not conform their game to d20
from reaping the benefits those of us whose products -do- conform to d20.
That is, the ability to say "hey, this is compatible with Necromancer Games'
_The Wizard's Amulet_ and requires (that powerhouse of associations), WotC's
Player's Handbook".
As has been debated on USENET (endlessly and, as befitting USENET, often
brainlessly), the comparative use of trademarks is well-tested in court only
in very specific cases, so this clause may be little more than something to
give people pause before "borrowing" our stuff. (And as Ryan points out, who
knows what way the court would go in a specific case...)
For me, at least, it's a welcome addition. It adds trademarks into the
license as one more "who knows what the court would say if someone sued
someone else, so let's define our own, clearly spelled-out rules and agree
to play by them so no one has to sue anyone else" to d20.
Am I close, Ryan?
--
Kevin Tatroe
www.islandspirits.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
