>>"MAKES NOT REPRESENTATION" --replace "NOT" with "NO."
I thought it was all part of the fantasy feel =)
"He who makes not representation hath verily given thyself unto the dogs of
law."
At 04:36 PM 11/9/2000, you wrote:
>Took a lunch break and read through the docs over a buffalo chicken salad at
>Denny's... In general, I think the new draft of the D20STL is very good. I
>have a couple of points for clarification, of course:
>
>Logos
>=====
>The question of color in the logo has already been brought up, with respect
>to black-only publications (or interior uses of the logo, such as on the
>title page of one of our works). A related point is that we need to have an
>authoritative location of the authoritative current logo(s), preferably as
>EPS files or otherwise scalable, and in CMYK channels. Perhaps the Logo
>Guide should identify a URL for such a file or directory.
>
>Translations
>============
>On the general topic of translations: This is something that will come up
>very quickly, as a number of parties are interested in doing foreign
>translations of existing D20 titles. My questions/suggestions in this
>respect:
>
>(1) It may be of value to have native language trademark acknowledgements,
>which the "Translation Rights" section apparently prohibits? Maybe there
>could be a requirement that the notice be in English *as well as* a
>subordinate translation. Maybe it's not a big deal.
>
>(2) A related topic: Perhaps the OGL should discuss translations, in that it
>should allow for translations of the OGL to be included in foreign language
>OGL works but with the warning that the English text is definitive in case
>of ambiguity or contradiction. (There's boilerplate to this effect in most
>foreign deals that come with agreements in two languages.) Alternately, we
>could just go with the current situation, which I guess implicitly would
>require non-English-language OGL publishers to include the OGL 1.0 in
>English; and by not endorsing any translations of the OGL at all we would
>try not to encourage people who are not able to read and understand the
>English original.
>
>(3) The D20 license might clarify how sublicensing of D20 licensed products
>proceeds. Atlas Games does not have the authority to sublicense the D20
>logo, does not have the necessity to license the use of our Open Gaming
>Content (already open for translation under the OGL), but we do have the
>right to license translations of our Product Identity and non-open text
>within D20/OGL works. Therefore, a company wanting to do 3D2K in Spanish
>must itself agree to the terms of the D20 STL and submit its card to WotC.
>Is my understanding correct, and if so is sufficient for these points to be
>implied by the OGL and D20STL or should it be made explicit in the logo
>guide?
>
>Restricted Trademark Use
>========================
>How does this section interrelate with third parties? For example, does
>Atlas Games have to require retailers and distributors not to use the terms
>"Dungeons & Dragons" or "Wizards of the Coast" in catalog listings,
>solicitation sheets, in-store displays, and other aspects of "advertising
>and marketing"...? If so, how do we enforce it, or what do we suffer if we
>are unable to enforce it?
>
>Another question: How do we solicit for a new D20 System product and
>appropriately acknowledge the licensed trademark without violating the
>clause against using the trademark "Wizards of the Coast" in
>advertising/marketing? Does WotC want us not to acknowledge the trademark
>in ads/solicitations that use the D20 System logo?
>
>As partners in the whole D20 thing, we all have a vested interest in seeing
>the D20 System trademarks maintained, because the restrictions in the
>license assist us all by creating a clear idea in consumers' minds of what
>they are getting. Imagine if someone challenges the D20 marks, saying that
>they saw dozens of ads and sell sheets from different manufacturers, and
>none saying whose mark it was, so it was presumed to be in the public
>domain. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how that would hold up as an
>argument for a diluted trademark (maybe it's not really a problem?), but if
>such a case prevailed and undermined the D20 System trademark it would hurt
>us all.
>
>Grandfathering
>==============
>Here we get to that risk that early D20 publishers have shouldered... ;)
>
>What if any provision is or will be made for products already published
>under the gentleman's agreement/draft D20STL up to this point? Do items
>published under draft versions of the license prior to 1.0 count under
>paragraph 9 of the D20STLA as "existing material that complies with a
>previous version of the D20 Trademark Logo Agreement" that may continue to
>be sold until we have a chance to reprint under the terms of the final
>license?
>
>If some or all existing non-WotC D20 publications might be considered to
>"breach" of the final version of the license, what would be necessary to
>"cure" it?
>
>My hope (and assumption) is that we are all good to continue selling
>existing printings until they run out, with reprintings and new materials
>being produced under the final license. But since that isn't 100% clear, so
>I figured I should ask...
>
>Other Stuff
>========
>On the question of not having to include the license, as Steve noticed and
>Ryan confirmed -- definitely a good thing. (In fact, I admit to overlooking
>the need to include the D20 license in 3D2K in the 500 copies we had at Gen
>Con).
>
>I can imagine nitpicking over what defines the 5% threshold for Open Game
>Content. Is it 5% of the word count, 5% of the pages containing some OGC,
>or 5% of the "live area" or page layout containing OGC? The number 5% seems
>low enough that it should not be a big issue, but perhaps it is better to
>err on the side of over-definition.
>
>Typo, paragraph 13 of the Agreement: It says "MAKES NOT
>REPRESENTATION" --replace "NOT" with "NO."
>
>-John Nephew
>President, Atlas Games
>
>-------------
>For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
