>From: Otto Hammersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
>So, what about the unintended (given the above assumptions) side
>effects? Well, I can't publish a new class in a D20 module. I can't
>even publish a new kit for an existing class. It really limits the
>scope of what can be published under the D20 trademark to simple
>adventures and some setting information.
Check out the OGF FAQ <unofficial> at:
http://www.earth1066.com/D20FAQ.htm#_C.02__
Read C.02 and C.03 for info on why you can create new classes and kits, and
why the restriction really isn't nearly as onerous as you think...
>Also, I'm making the assumption that the Open Gaming Foundation will be
>a non-profit separate from WotC
Very unlikely.
>and that they will own the D20
>trademark.
No, the D20 trademark is separate from the OGF. It is Wizards' mark and
they will be able to use it any way they like. They are not bound by the
restrictions in the STL.
Good comments though...
Faust
See the OGF FAQ <unofficial> at:
http://www.earth1066.com/D20FAQ.htm
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [Open_Gaming] D20 Trademark License Considered Harmful.
>Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 15:42:44 -0400
>
>Original subject, I know. :)
>
>Okay, here goes. I've been mulling this around in my head for a while
>now and I *think* I've looked at every aspect of it. It's somewhat
>long, so please bear with me.
>
>The short comment: I believe section 3.1.2 in the d20 trademark license
>is bad for everyone involved, Wizards of the Coast included.
>
>Just so no one has to go look it up:
>
>3.1.2. No Publication distributed under the terms of this License may
>contain information explaining the effects on characters of earning
>experience or advancing in "level" as that term is defined in the D20
>System Reference Document v0.0.
>
>Now, the reasoning:
>
>First, I'm making some assumptions about WotC's motives here. First,
>they want to grow the sales of the Players Handbook (and other core
>books?). Second, they've figured out that D&D gaming material
>(modules, etc) drive the sales figures of the PHB up. So, the
>reasonable conclusion is to allow more people to produce such material
>and drive the sales even higher.
>
>However, they want to protect their interest, they don't want any
>product to be able to take sales directly away from the PHB. So, the
>decision to limit direct competitors to the PHB that can call themselves
>"D20". That's my understanding (IANAL) of the purpose of that clause.
>
>Also, I'm making the assumption that the Open Gaming Foundation will be
>a non-profit separate from WotC and that they will own the D20
>trademark. The former is stated plainly on the website.. the latter
>makes sense, but may not be the case. I certainly hope it is.
>
>It makes sense. On the surface.
>
>If you think about it for a minute, it doesn't really stop a whole lot.
>I can still publish a verbatim copy of the D20 reference document and
>sell it at a profit. I just can't specifically say it's D20. I can
>call it "a D20 workalike" without any trouble (IANAL, but the UNIX
>trademark works this way).
>
>So, what about the unintended (given the above assumptions) side
>effects? Well, I can't publish a new class in a D20 module. I can't
>even publish a new kit for an existing class. It really limits the
>scope of what can be published under the D20 trademark to simple
>adventures and some setting information.
>
>Here's the part that hurts WotC...
>
>In August, the PHB comes out and it has the D20 logo on it. It's the
>only book of it's kind that can legally do that. All's good and fine
>for WotC. But, what happens when D20 starts to change? When the
>community starts adding their house rules to the defacto standard?
>Tweaking things here and there.
>
>****The second revision of the PHB can't include those changes and still
>be called D20.****
>
>The copyright of those changes are owned by someone else and under the
>D20 license. As long as the trademark is owned by the OGF and WotC
>doesn't have special treatment from them, they'd be breaking the D20
>trademark license.
>
>Is this the intent, or are my assumptions wrong?
>--
> -Otto.
>-------------
>For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
