Hello, all. I have a hypothetical question. (Well, all right, it's a little more than hypothetical, but I'm deliberately staying vague for now.)
Suppose I have a document which is entirely OGC. It might be because the author intentionally declared it as such; or it might be because the author did a poor job of declaring the OGC, so the whole document is covered by default. Now suppose that document DOES NOT declare the author's logo as Product Identity. It might be because the author declared no Product Identity; or it might be because the author did a poor job of declaring the Product Identity, so that one cannot be sure what is and isn't PI. Now further suppose that the author DID claim the logo as a trademark. Now it's clear what the author intended, in the case of unclear designation: the logo is not OGC. We can play semantic games, arguing that because it's unclear, the logo is up for grabs. But we all know what he meant. But suppose it were clear cut: "All OGC", no PI designation, and the logo claimed as a trademark. What would be the status of that trademark? The OGL forbids indicating compatibility or co-adaptibility with trademarks without an express, independent Agreement outside the OGL; yet it allows reuse of OGC under the terms of the OGL. If the trademark is OGC, is this a loophole that allows others to reuse it without regard to Section 7? If the trademark is NOT OGC, does this mean that we have FOUR kinds of content in an OGC work: OGC, PI, standard copyright, and trademarks? Martin L. Shoemaker Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com http://www.UMLBootCamp.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
