"Faustus von Goethe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do that? Perhaps some of the *only* damning criticisms of the OGL up to
> now is that it seeks to expand restrictions over and above those already
> inherent in current copyright and trademark law. Adding more restrictions
> seems to reinforce the naysayers' view that that is all WotC is trying to
> accomplish with this - create a *more restrictive* environment than the
> market already allows.
Hardly. NOTHING prevents someone from ignoring the OGL and the D20SRD, and
just doing what the law and the market already allow. WotC couldn't do that
if they tried...
The OGL and the D20SRD both grant specific permission to do something, in
exchange for a few specific agreements. I don't see any problem with the
change.
> As a suggestion, why not write the clause to read
>
> ". . . in such a way that the use of the trademark might cause confusion to
> potential purchasers about the originator of the product."
>
> This would be much more in keeping with the letter (and spirit) of the
> trademark statutes.
Faust, Ryan's not the lawyer. The lawyer will probably put up something to
that effect.
> >This is another "carrot and stick" clause.
>
> I'm missing the carrot?
Your trademark is protected.
> Gaming companies have failed on several occasions through legal means to
> stop just this kind of use (even though the use really had no impact on
> either their trademarks or sales). It *really seems* (from the outside)
> that another company is now trying to reengineer the market to make such a
> restriction possible.
Not the market, only those who choose to use the OGL. This is no different
than the GPL prohibiting the licencing of software. (If it DOESN'T do that,
don't bother flaming me on the list...)
> This is a *very* worthy objective. I heartily applaud - unless and until it
> starts to look like an initiative to add additional restrictions over and
> above the law.
That's the whole point of a contract, faust... you restrict someone over and
above the law in exhage for letting them do something over and above the law.
I'd much rather have a "Game mechanics must be open" rather than a "derivitive
works must be open."
> Just my paranoia speaking...
BOO!
DM
Looking for a game? I DM in Upstate NY, twice a month in New Hartford, NY (a
suburb of Utica)
Even better, I've got irregular games where I live, in Charlton (near Albany).
Drop me a line and we'll game!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM: PlanesdragonDM ICQ: 26106342
____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
