> Um, so why not just remove #7 and instead replace it by
> something like: "Users of the OGL must abide by current trademark
> law." That seems pretty obvious to me. If you want the OGL to be
> a little more helpful it can name the different parts of trademark
Well, I'm a lurker, not a lawyer, Jim (waited for a long time to have a
chance to use that!) but I guess that won't do. What law? What country?
Local / national laws don't apply elsewhere. Although I'm all for
simplifying, referring to an external document that is NOT under your
control is bound to cause problems. It's the same as adapting standars: you
could claim your equipment would comply to XYZ v23 dated bla bla bla, but
the security that offers does not help much in this discussion, as that is
aimed to protection yourself against other claiming you did something bad,
instead of being able to handle violators...
With all this discussion it's becoming clear to me that we haven't gotten
yet an acceptable d20 agreement, do we? I was under the impression that it
was TSR's intention to get something 'on the road' before GenCom... it
isn't, or is it?
( another humble opinion 3e in 2k...
http://www.bluez.scarlet.nl/rpg/rpg_3e2k.htm )
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
