On 12 Aug 00, Kal scribbled a note about RE: [Open_Gaming] Trademarks and Me:
> But the new clause is not very impartial. Trademark holders
> benefit. The more valuable the trademark the more valueable
> the benefit (ie. best for WotC). Non-trademark holders are
> left feeling unwelcomed.
Trademark holders benefit because they are the ones with
something to lose if another person infringes upon their trademark
illegally. It is that simple.
I agree with the purpose of the clause, but I do think that it could
be worded a little better to help reduce some confusion that
appears to abound about this topic.
If you do not like the clause as it stands, why not attempt to
propose an alternative rather than just complaining about it. If you
want to get changes made, just complaining about it isn't always
the answer. Sometimes you have to take the initiative to draft up a
better version (or what you think is a better version).
>From the post in which Ryan introduced this clause, it is obvious to
me that WOTC will not approve the OGL (or the release of the D20
SRD) without it or something similiar in place to protect
themselves. The fact that they made the clause a blanket cause
covering all trademarks impartially shows that while they want this
goal to be achieved without resorting to clauses that will benifit only
themselves (or special case clauses).
I thake this to mean that while they do want d20 to be the system
of choice, that they are still hoping to attract other systems to the
OGL in the future as well.
*************************
********TANSTAAFL********
*************************
Rasyr (Tim Dugger)
E-Mail:
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Work:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WebPage: http://www.rpghost.com/rasyr/
Last updated: October 6, 1999
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
