On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Voivode wrote:
> Yes, but as I understand it, the change covers all uses of trademark and not
> just those that would be applicable because of the field that the product
> was in. We would be required to get permission from WOTC to use even
> "Dungeon" or "Dragon" because even though trademark law primarily protects
> that use in a "magazine" format, the OGL, or explanation we have, does not
> specify this at all, it just says "trademark." In other words, the use of
> "colt" would be barred from use without permission, by the suggested OGL
> change (even if your referring to a young male horse) because it is "a"
> trademark" held by "Colt" and the proposed OGL change, does not seem to
> specify what areas/fields the trademarks are from.
Let's see if I can say this in another way so it becomes clear. A _WORD_
is NOT a trademark in the abstract. So using a word as it is natural used
is NOT using a trademark. The use of colt would not be barred by the new
langauge if you are refering to a young male horse - that simply isn't
using a trademark that is held by anyone. The proposed change limits the
use of trademarks, it does not limit the use of normal language. Saying
that the new clause limits the use of normal langauge is simply not
accurate.
> All, of course, as I understand it. I guess the specific wording
> WOULD help here.
Yes, it would. :)
later,
alec
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
