I don't quite understand your question, Kal. "People who haven't even said
what contributions they will make" -- are you contrasting these people with
WotC and saying that they(WotC) have said they will contribute the SRD, etc.
That sentence (mine, I mean) needs to be a bit more obtuse, I think. Forgive
my convoluted grammar -- I hope you can make out what I meant. What I mean
is, are you suggesting that people should have to state their intentions
before receiving these trademark protections? That sounds very complex and
hard to administrate.
But why shouldn't I be entitled to the same protection? What about me makes
me less deserving than WotC? I'm not offended at all, just wondering what
criteria we could use to make this sort of distinction and how that would
benefit people.
You also commented on trademark owners not wanting to leak any content into
OGL.
My interest in the OGL is primarily in the way it makes game mechanisms
available to anyone. Not in the way it allows people to collaborate on
settings. I have NO interest in making my "content" (meaning my settings and
characters and plots) open. I am interested in opening up rules and systems
and seeing if people grab on and improve them or adapt them.
Which is perhaps why we're not seeing eye-to-eye on this trademark issue. I
get the impression that you're more interested in the idea of open content
and people contributing to a game environment -- writing modules, campaign
books and so on. Which has much bigger trademark risks, I'll grant you.
But I don't think that WotC wants people writing Greyhawk adventures or Dark
Sun modules. They want to have control over what goes on in those kinds of
settings. I'm not saying that you want to do that, just pointing out that
open content (as opposed to open rules) is not what (IMO) the OGL is
supposed to provide.
core
> ----------
> From: Kal Lin
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 12:00 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] Trademarks and Me
>
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Corey Reid wrote:
>
> > But that's exactly what the D20 STL is. It's permission to use the
> > trademark. The D20 trademark is a way for WotC to allow people to claim
> > "compatible with" status with D&D without releasing their valuable
> brand.
>
> And I posted that I would support a clause in the OGL that
> prevented usage of D20, D&D and any other WotC trademark.
> This seems quite justified when viewed in light of the
> contribution they are making in the D20SRD.
>
> Please don't take offense. The following is a general question
> and not aimed at anyone in particular:
>
> Why should other people who haven't even said what contributions
> they will make to the OGL be given the extra trademark protections
> that WotC seeks? From the history of the list, most trademark
> holders are seeking to not leak any content into the OGL.
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------
> For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
>
>
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
