>your scenario doesn't lie with WotC (why do you keep using TSR?)
Obvious (IMO) he is polite enough to not want to offend current list members
...
>OGL clause and trademark law don't operate in the manner that Kal has
>asserted.
Nonsense - One of the main things Kal is asserting is that the OGL clause
will strengthen trademark law in favor of the trademark holder. This is
true. Ryan was the one to first state this - it is the "stick" in his
"carrot and stick" analogy.
Ryan was also the one to politely (and rightly, and unabashedly) point out,
that this clause was being put into the OGL for WotC's benefit. (Because of
his meeting with the lawyer.) He *believes* it will ultimately favor
everybody, but this does not change the >fact< that the clause is in there
*at this time* to protect WotC.
I >>*believe*<< that Kal's central theme is the one we started with (oh so
much rhetoric ago) that >philosophically< the OGL should not concern itself
with strengthening laws which are already adequate.
Based on the discussion so far, I do not believe that the fact that the laws
are adequate already is at all in dispute - as Alec has (I think) been quick
to point out their adequacy in many different ways.
I am asking ONE QUESTION directed to Alec:
Alec, why do you feel the trademark laws need to be strengthened
by the OGL to favor the trademark holder?
This (philosophical, not legal) issue has been (murkily albeit) at the
center of all of my objections so far - that the laws do not need
strengthening, and that the clause is being put in AT THIS TIME to favor the
market leader.
So why should >I< support it?
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
