Hi,
This is a reply to Corey Reid. I suggested that in practical
terms, if you surrender the right to even legal use of trademarks,
then OGL games are just as "closed" as non-OGL games.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Corey Reid wrote:
> If Game X is released under to OGL then you can use that open material
> without any permission from anyone. What you can't do is use the trademarks
> of the company that released Game X without their permission.
>
> That may seem to be of little benefit. But it lets people generate new
> games based on each other's rule systems.
What, like GURPS is based on _Champions_? Or like _Palladium
Fantasy_ is based on AD&D? Frankly, I don't see that this benefit is
worth anything in practical terms. Role-playing games *constantly*
draw on each other for ideas, which is perfectly legal because ideas
cannot be copyrighted.
Suppose I make an OGL game which is based on on Game X (released
under the OGL), but never uses the term "Game X". OK, so now I have to
make it a stand-alone rules system, since I can't refer readers to the
base document. Moreover, presumably I want my game to do something that
Game X doesn't do -- so my rules set will be significantly transformative.
At this point, I don't *need* the OGL in order to release my game...
I can simply release it as is. As proof, I can point to dozens of
small-press D&D clones which are on the market.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
> When Apple Computer released Darwin (the core of their upcoming OS) as an
> open-source project, they allowed whoever wanted to to copy it, change it
> and distribute it. That gave no one the right to use "Apple Computer" in
> their work. I don't know if the Darwin license includes any particular
> trademark clauses, but what I'm trying to illustrate is that there is value
> in the open content itself, with or without trademarks attached.
But Apple Computer did *not* attach a clause that prevents
any Darwin source users from saying "Usable with the Apple OS" on
their software. That is because the entire *point* of having the OS
source is in making compatible software. Let me quote from the Apple
trademark policy (which is required with the Apple Public Source
Liscense -- "www.apple.com/legal/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html"):
: Third party developers can use Apple, Macintosh, iMac, or any
: other Apple word mark (but not the Apple Logo or other Apple-owned
: graphic symbol/logo) in a referential phrase on packaging,
: promotional/advertising materials to describe that the third
: party product is compatible with the referenced Apple product
: or technology, provided they comply with the following requirements.
:
: a. The Apple word mark is not part of the third party product name.
: b. The Apple work mark is used in a referential phrase such as
: "runs on", "for use with", "for", or "compatible with".
: c. The Apple word mark appears less prominent than the third
: party product name.
: d. The product is in fact compatible with, or otherwise works with,
: the referenced Apple product.
: e. The reference to Apple does not create a sense of endorsement
: sponsorship by, or other false association with, Apple or Apple
: products.
: f. The use does not show Apple or its products in a false or
: derogatory light.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
