> >2. In some way I cannot comprehend, Trademarks are different from > >Product Identity -- yes, I know they're different, but read on -- in > >such a way that "You agree not to Use any Product Identity..." > >automatically means "from any source from which you derive" (or perhaps > >"from any source from which you directly derive"), but "You agree not > >to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or > >Registered Trademark..." automatically means "no matter what > it applies > >to". > > you say it yourself a bit further down, but i think the answer is > pretty simple: PI has no meaning outside of the WotC OGL, so it can't > possibly have any more power than that contract gives it. And that > contract only makes sense in the context of deriving from a work. > Trademarks have meaning in a much broader scope. IOW, the "any"s in > those two clauses don't change, what changes is that a term is a > trademark whether you know it or not, but something can only be > "Product Identity" if you know it is.
Now THAT is a distinction that makes sense to me, and would explain why "any" applies to the whole set in the case of Trademarks but only to a relevant subset in the case of PI. > So, something that is included > in a PI designation in a product you haven't read simply *isn't* > "Product Identity" as far as *your* contract is concerned. > > Leastways, that's my interpretation. I like that interpretation. I have no idea what a court will say, but it makes sense to me. Thanks! Martin L. Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.TabletUML.com -- The UML tool you don't have to learn! _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
