On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Alec A. Burkhardt wrote:
> How? I still have not seen a single example of how the proposed clause is
Example:
I create a levelless game mechanic and want to contribute
it to open gaming. My motivation is the hope some of those
very many open gamers will like the system and add to it so
that I can also benefit from their contributions. With a
little luck, soon quite a few people start contributing and
using each others material in a productive and open fashion.
We are now all burdened with this extra no trademarks clause.
If someone contributes a module called "Snakemen of Blablabla"
for the levelless game mechanic, my intention would be for
anyone else (including myself) to be able to contribute a
levelless module compatible with "Snakemen of Blablabla" and
say so. My intention would also be for the evolving trademark
laws and practice to govern as the years go on. Not for the
new clause to hold everyone hostage forever.
> The clause provides trademark holders with a stronger case to prevent the
> unlicensed use of their trademarks, but that's about it. But if a company
> does not want you using their trademarks the infringement and dilution
> sections of trademark law are broad enough to essentially permit any
> company to at least mount a legal case against anyone using their
> trademarks.
That doesn't justify why they should burden the rest of us so
they can have more ammunition to protect their trademarks.
If the reasoning is WotC must have the extra protection
in the OGL because dilution is too likely when they invite
everyone to work on the D20 system then let's address
that with a no WotC trademark clause in the OGL (would
be a sad turn for the OGL but there are worse fates).
Those with trademarks please don't take offense but WotC
is, IMHO, the only player here with a trademark that anyone
else wants to latch onto.
Regards,
--Kal
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
