> Sun then registered the trademark "100% Pure Java" and essentially
> makes people pay to use that trademark. Usage of the "Java"
> trademark, however, does not require payment.
Very similar to the relationship between D20 and OGL. Gotta agree here.
> Something irked the software community, though. While Java was
> somewhat open, Sun holds the keys. Java can not evolve on its own --
> Sun will always have the final say on what is or is not Java. The
> problem with this is that Sun has big marketing (and litigation)
> dollars to attack anyone who wishes to propose something very similar
> to Java that might compete in the marketplace. Just having big guns
> is one thing, but Sun showed that they were willing to shoot. When
> Microsoft tried to make its own version of Java (and call it Java),
> Sun opened fire on Microsoft.
The trouble here is that Microsoft was using Java under a license agreement
from Sun that said they would not make something that was incompatible with
the rest of Java. Then they violated that license agreement with Visual J++
and the Microsoft/Java Virtual Machine for Windows. They compounded the
problem by hiding the incompatibilities inside the Visual J++ tools, so that
developers didn't even know they were writing the Microsoft-specific flavor
of Java.
The entity threatened here was Microsoft, not Sun. Microsoft saw a
technology that would make Windows less important in the marketplace. So
they did something about it and Sun called them on it.
Sun lost popularity with Java when they failed to turn over the language to
an independent entity, but that does not mitigate Microsoft's deliberate
attempt to co-op Java developers into writing Windows code.
Since D20 doesn't have any rules about compatibility with D&D, the only
parallel we can draw here is the D20 STL. If you create a work that
violates the D20 STL, then WotC is well within their rights to sue you.
> of network extenalities holds in this case, hen the D20 system would
> not really be open. (Not in a practical sense -- the open/free
> movement is about the spirit, not the letter of the law.)
D20 isn't open, not entirely. The D20 SRD is though.
> Something I wonder -- should the D20 rules be released under the OGL,
> what happens if someone slaps on character creation and advancement
> rules and calls it something catchy, like "Frogs and Fiends?" The new
> game would be practically identical to D&D. Would it catch on? What
> would Hasbro do to stop it?
I think they would do both. If the "Frogs & Fields" character rules
violated a D&D copyright, then there would be a legal fight. If not, then
it would be a marketing fight. I think the latter would be more effective
and cheaper, and have the benefit of no PR backlash.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
