On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Alec A. Burkhardt wrote:
> > I have no interest in their 90 pages but why should the OGL
> > be burdened with a clause that provides them extra protection?
>
> What extra protection has it provided them? You haven't pointed to a
extra protection = reduced cost of initiating a lawsuit + reduced
burden of proof to win a case
> single thing. The fact that they trademarked their hero in closed content
> is irrelevant - under the OGL you can't use their closed content
> anyway. And quite obviously you must have an interest in their 90 pages,
> since that's where the trademark is.
I'm not interested in the trademarked hero. I'm wondering why
the OGL should have a clause to expedite trademark protection?
> What new things can people #1 trademark in the swamp setting that isn't in
> open content? Anything derivative of the of the orginal groups work must
> be in the open content portion, including trademarked characers. The
> orginal group has no right to have access to the independent creations of
> group #2 that they might choose to place in closed content under the OGL.
Here people #1 are interested in referencing characters that were
developed in their contributed setting. "Monster X eluded being
slain by [trademarked hero]." The new clause in the OGL does
them a disservice. They feel ripped off and go with the GFDL.
Do you really feel the new clause would not do any legitimate
users of the OGL a disservice? Every case a trademark holder
might bring deserves to be afforded reduced costs and reduced
burden of proof?
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
