<<So, a magazine that has a single OGC-containing article coudn't use
trademarks anywhere in the magazine to indicate compatibility or
co-adaptability.>>
I think that's true, via the "in conjunction with" clause.
<<It couldn't have an article in that issue about "New
Races for ShadowRun(tm)"?
>>
Interesting question. I'm not even certain it's safe to hazard a guess on this, because all interpretations seem crappy. Since I'm always willing to put my foot in it to learn something, I'll hazard a guess.
The relevant sentence is:
"You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark."
OK, so there's two different readings here:
a) even if a trademark has NOTHING to do with the OGC in question you can't refer to compatibility with that trademark if the mention is distributed in the same commercial unit as the OGC
b) "in conjunction with" assumes that the trademarks to which you are claiming compatiblity to have something to do with the systems the OGC is intended to interface with, and that any compatibility declaration that has nothing to do with the OGC, its use, or its distribution, can be safely made.
"b" allows you to have another article about races for Shadowrun if your OGC has nothing to do with that subject.
<<
Which points to some other problems with the WotC FAQs, and reasons why
i'm disinclined to accept any of their answers as being trustable. >>
I think WotC's FAQ is of dubious value for a couple of reasons.
Except where it's clearly interpreting unambiguous sections of the license per their plain English meaning, their opinions aren't of great value in a court because, in a contract of adhesion courts construe the contract against the drafter.
Second, this is the same company that tried to convince the world that they owned a patent that stops everyone in the world from producing any kind of CCG. Decipher and their CCG patent is probably sneering at WotC for that. WotC's proclamations in their FAQ are probably approved by their legal team to say things that are consistent with people doing what WotC wants.
Their FAQ is useful for one big thing in my opinion -- telling you what they might be willing to sue you for (even if they'd lose some of those suits).
<<Namely, they don't want you to be able to get around the restrictions by
breaking the content into two separate physical books which are sold
together as one economic unit.>>
I'm not certain that this would let you elude the "in conjunction" clause. That's not defined, and it's just the kind of thing that a judge will happily stick you on if you try to be a smart alec with some scheme to circumvent the clear intent of the license.
"in conjunction with" could be really broad if a judge wanted it to be. Is an ad for a product that declares compatibility with a trademark an ad made "in conjunction with" the distributed OGC? Hmmm. Who knows. I don't want to find out personally.
I think people focus too much on what a work is for compatibility declarations. I think "in conjunction with" can reach beyond the "covered work"
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
