"Dan Carreker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It won't work because there are ways around it. While it may restrict a
> publisher from saying " Compatible with Dungeon and Dragon" or "World of
> Darkness" it doesn't prevent him from saying "will work with any 20 sided
> die resolution" or "multiple 10 sided dice system." Any number of
> euphemisms can be used to get around the issue.
But that DOES work. The *COMMON PUBLIC* won't trust a generic term ("Any
20-sided system" sounds cheaper than "d20"), and thus the value of the
trademark is preserved. In fact, as "you" (the theoretical developer who
releases "Trollslayer", a D&D style game [skipping possible copying of a
non-OGL system]) still are able to tell what your game is without reducing the
value of the TM, this clause makes even more sense.
> What it does do is complicates the matter. People look at the guidelines
> and see the restriction and perceive (and perception is often more
important
> than reality) it being too complicated. They see a potential difficulty or
> violation and as a result shy away from the OGL relying on fair usage laws
> instead.
"People" percieve the open/closed distinction as "too complex." "People"
perceive the OGL and D20STL as being "not truly open."
"People" also percieve both of the above statements to be complete and utter
bull.
In a line, this is too new a movement to gain any real public perception of
it.
> But the legitimate OGL work then becomes an effort in checking trademarks.
How?
> I can't see how, without turning the OGL into a book of it's own you can
> separate types of trademarks. It extends past gaming logos and into other
> areas. Is Gattling Gun a trademark? Foozeball? Mesa? Old Farmer's
> Almanac? Suddenly my work becomes an exercise in synonyms, sacrificing
> precise language for less culpable verbosity. Even the phrase "roll a
1d20"
> becomes a touchy subject cause of it's closeness to "D20."
LOL...
"Gattling gun" is generic, "Foozeball" and "Old Farmer's Almanac" are probably
solid trademarks, "Mensa" (which is a high-IQ society) is probably a trademark
but they might be lax with enforcment... or give permission.
The xdy (x is # of dice, y is dice sides) formula is an industry standard, and
can be trademarked about as easily as "RPG" can.
> In other words, what are the
> teeth of this clause and who's mouth are they in?
This isn't a question limited to this clause; the same question applies to ALL
of the OGL.
> Personally I think it's fairer and easier just to restrict this to
> advertising, and the outside portion of the book (or other packaging) and
> let the rest remain status quo.
I agree. There are a LOT of reasons to mention a trademark inside a book, and
I don't see a reason to go overboard here. (They could even go as far as
limiting an "introduction" as well...)
Of course, I'm not a laywer, you're probably not a lawyer, and there's one
looking over the OGL who's probably a specialized IP lawyer... so let's not
prejudge the man before he does his work!
DM
Looking for a game? I DM in Upstate NY, twice a month in New Hartford, NY (a
suburb of Utica)
Even better, I've got irregular games where I live, in Charlton (near Albany).
Drop me a line and we'll game!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM: PlanesdragonDM ICQ: 26106342
____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
