Ryan commented on mental.zip:
>I would not include the sentence after "Doug Meerschaert":
>"The Craft of the Mind is copyright 2000 Doug Meerschaert. It is derivative
>of the D20 System Reference Document, Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast."
>Because it violates the Product Identity clause ("Wizards of the Coast"),
>and it is unnecessary.
I believe this comment needs clarification. The violation is not because Doug
used ("Wizards of the Coast") to indicate copyright ownership of the D20SRD,
it is because he claims derivation from it (thus indicating compatibility).
To infer or imply that clause 7 of the OGL prohibits the use of product
identity to merely indicate legal ownership of Product Identity is
questionable.
Thus, "D20 System Reference Document. Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast."
by itself would be fine but "This [system] is derivative of [compatible with]
the
D20 System Reference Document. Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast." would
NOT be alright because of the derivation claims.
Are we to believe that clause 7 prevents proper indication of ownership of
Product Identity where necessary?
Then we have:
> >Because it violates the Product Identity clause ("Wizards of the Coast"),
> >and it is unnecessary.
>
> Noted. The "derivitive of" section was removed, and the
> copyright notice of
> the D20SRD (as best I could find) was placed there, as follows:
>
> "The Craft of the Mind is copyright 2000 Doug Meerschaert. The D20SRD is
> copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc. "
>You can't say "Wizards of the Coast" without permission.
(drawn from Brad Thompson's post, the last being his quote)
I don't think Doug's new version is in violation. Simply stating who owns a
copyright can't be considered a violation.
Personally I think that since Wizards of the Coast is a company, that issues
of compatibility with Wizards of the Coast are unlikely to surface (how is a
product compatible with a company?). The real issue is whether clause 7
prevents ANY citations of Product Identity, even where such citations are
needed for valid legal reasons that may not warrant a separate license
agreement.
Another example would be something like this in a product:
"You may find the following products useful as reference material for this
product.
xxxx, published by Wizards of the Coast.
yyyy, published by Company zzzz.
Etc.
xxxx and Wizards of the Coast are trademarks of Wizards if the Coast, Inc.
yyyy is a trademark of Company zzzz."
Here we have a situation in which could be argued as a violation of the
letter but not spirit of the OGL. Clearly there is no indication of
derivation or compatibility (the two main issues). Thoughts?
-Alex Silva
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
