[Doug Meerschaert] "It's all in what you indicate compatability with.
If, for example, SSS wants to say that all of their Warcraft d20 books
are both compatible and co-adaptable, the OGL certainly can't say
anything about it."
I'm not convinvced. Shall we just leave it at that and agree i
Steve, you know full well my mention of "negativity" was in regard to
your rudeness, ala - "Then the thing you need to consider, Mark, is
which of our goals is actually looking at what the people on the list
here are talking about" (basically telling me to shut up if my goals
differ). Twis
Mark, what I'm saying isn't that it can't be used away from the d20 system,
but if you think it's not going to be associated that way you're mistaken.
To most people--publishers or customers--who know enough to even know what
you're talking about when you say "OGL", "d20" is the next thought that p
On 8/13/06, Mark Clover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I doubt you could successfully argue in court that
a logo that seeks to implicitly indicate compatibility is not in
violation of a licensing agreement that disallows indications of
compatibility. Just because it hasn't come up yet do not mean th
[Steven Trustrum] "Then the thing you need to consider, Mark, is which
of our goals is actually looking at what the people on the list here
are talking about: a feasible logo that could even attempt to fill the
shoes of the d20 logo in case of the latter's retraction."
Not as such. The dis
Then the thing you need to consider, Mark, is which of our goals is actually
looking at what the people on the list here are talking about: a feasible
logo that could even attempt to fill the shoes of the d20 logo in case of
the latter's retraction.
Regards,
Steven Trustrum
President For Li
[Steven Trustrum] (snip)
Because we have different goals in regard to possible OGL logos, we
vigorously disagree on points that I do not believe will be resolved
by my rewording and repeating myself. Best of luck.
As always,
Mark Clover
www.CreativeMountainGames.com
__
"Perhaps not today, or thus far (perhaps, only while it suits their
needs), but if they ever decide that they wish to make an issue of it,
they certainly could. And, as always gets mentioned sooner or later,
the party with the deep pockets makes that call no matter what the
rest of us thi
[Steven Trustrum] "There's absolutely nothing wrong with that level of
"winking." WotC itself sees nothing wrong with it."
Perhaps not today, or thus far (perhaps, only while it suits their
needs), but if they ever decide that they wish to make an issue of it,
they certainly could. And, as
"You're saying the same thing a lot of people say, or that they try not
to say while still trying to get the point across. I don't feel
comfortable with that level of winking."
[Steven Trustrum] Why? There's absolutely nothing wrong with that level of
"winking." WotC itself sees nothing wron
Markus:
We* had quite a discussion about the whys and why-nots of using the
OGL or just making a new license. (A good portion of it, as Clark
noted, happened here.) We decided to use our own license because,
quite simply, the OGL wasn't intended to protect trademarks. There is
*no* way to make
"Mark, you missed what I was trying to say. Let me try to clarify."
Didn't miss a thing. I just don't agree.
"I'm not saying the logo should say in text "hey, we're compatible
with the d20 system!" I'm saying the logo you presented fails because
VISUALLY it doesn't have anything that will f
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 21:13 -0400, Mark Clover wrote:
> The license is quite explicit about claiming compatibility without a
> separate permission. No third party logo or OGL logo can claim
> compatibility to D&D, the d20 license, or anything without a separate
> agreement.
Agreed. Any such
Mark, you missed what I was trying to say. Let me try to clarify.
I'm not saying the logo should say in text "hey, we're compatible with the
d20 system!" I'm saying the logo you presented fails because VISUALLY it
doesn't have anything that will flip a switch in the customer's mind for
them to dra
"As I see it, the major problem with that logo is there's nothing to
tie such products to d20 in the consumer's mind, which is by far the
first thing such a logo would need to do."
The license is quite explicit about claiming compatibility without a
separate permission. No third party logo
As I see it, the major problem with that logo is there's nothing to tie such
products to d20 in the consumer's mind, which is by far the first thing such
a logo would need to do.
Regards,
Steven Trustrum
President For Life (or until the money runs out)
Misfit Studios
http://www.misfit-stu
ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
Re: OGL Logos?
Available for use with the only restriction being use of the OGL,
since the Third Party
Publisher designation and logo is, in itself, OGC -
http://www.creativemountaingames.com/tpp/third_party_publisher_ogl.pdf
http://www.creativemountainga
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Roger Bert
> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 9:10 PM
> To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
> Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] RE: OGL Logos
>
>
> If 4E is not licensed then you can't brand your OGL produ
Maggie:
I'll take 2c whenever I can get it.
I'm glad you like our website. I've googled you and BWR and read up
a bit
on what you are doing (though your web site is down). I'm very
impressed
and wish you the best of luck. I'm an 'aerospace education officer'
in the
Civil Air Patrol. Ed
I might have missed what you are saying. Yes, it is
true there are non-d20, non-OGL products out there.
But distributors know what is up, to some extent. They
know their market. And non-d20 OGL stuff that isnt
licensed content (a la Babylon 5) or from an
established publisher isnt selling crap rig
Except this argument ignores the fact that other companies still manage to
sell distributors on their products without them even using the d20 logo or
OGL. There is an entire aspect of the gaming industry that goes through the
three tier system and has nothing to do with the discussion here because
You kinda answered your own question there, Roger. What would you be
branding to if 4e isn't licensed? Um, that's sorta why people are discussing
the viability of uniting to create recognizable third party branding
recognition on their own.
There is a BIG difference behind pushing third party bran
You guys are forgetting the real market force here:
distributors.
(though some of the arguments are the same)
Your products dont get to the fans unless the
retailers buy them from distributors.
Distributors bought d20 at first. But "d20" as a whole
was a disaster. Lots of people got stuck with "
Dave-
I'm agreeing with you for three reasons:
1. your post was too long to read, so I cant argue
with what I didnt read :)
2. the part I did read was hillarious
and most of all
3. you put my name with Monte. And, as we all know,
Monte is a "genius." So I feel all warm inside.
Clark
--- Davi
If 4E is not licensed then you can't brand your OGL products to D&D or d20
for that matter. The d20 System Trademark license and licensees will likely
be rescinded by WOTC. Who are you going to be branding too?
Perhaps today a little "OGL" logo means it is compatible with D&D more or
less for the
25 matches
Mail list logo
