[FAUST SAID] > > 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. [Doug Meerschaert REPLIED] >Hardly. NOTHING prevents someone from ignoring the OGL [FAUST REPLIES] Doug, that is exactly what I am considering doing if it gets much more restrictive, as many folks already have, BUT I *want* the OGF to work, so I continue assuming that it will. That is the issue - if you add a bunch of restrictions into the OGL that extend over and above what the law proscribes, the OGL will be ignored by everybody but WotC. It will become a "D20"-only OGL. I personally do not want this. Also, to add additional resrictions above the law - this is not what the Open Software Foundation does at all - and with each new restriction, it starts to look less and less like "open" and more and more like somethiing else. I strongly feel that an "open" license should be limited to encouraging openness and *defining* areas where the law might be gray - *NOT* creating additional restrictions that the law does not already provide. > > >This is another "carrot and stick" clause. > > > > I'm missing the carrot? > >Your trademark is protected. My trademark (and yours) is alread protected by trademark law. We will not get any benefit from the clause as proposed. Faust See the OGL 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
