Hi John.
To some degree you're absolutely right. There is a difference, however,
between "based on" and "exactly the same as". I can use the SRD as a
mechanism for a whole game system and spend my time working on
setting/content stuff and not worry about inventing a whole game. In this
scenario, I have no interest in using WotC's trademarks, but I'm still ahead
of the "closed" situation because I can use their tables and their
calculations. For someone who's more interested in creating a setting than
worrying about creating mechanisms, this is an advantage.
If I want to advertise my game as "compatible with" another game, at this
point I'm stuck. I have to either ask for permission to use their
trademarks, or I have to hope that they create a Trademark License similar
to D20.
If they do, however, I'm now way ahead of the "closed" situation. I have a
game system all made for me, and I can advertise with a legitimate trademark
that carries some market value.
The clause from the Apple license is great and somebody should point that
out to Ryan. There might be a way to use that sort of language in the OGL.
It would have to say something like, "The Publisher of Open Content agrees
to allow use of their trademarks under the following conditions..."
core
> ----------
> From: John Kim
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 2:49 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: [Open_Gaming] Trademarks and Me
>
> 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
>
>
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
