On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
> Kal, I think we've degenerated from discussion to politics and semantics.
I apologize if my tone read poorly. I really want to point
out that, in my opinion, the purpose of the OGL takes a turn
when we start adding clauses that do not serve the more general
gaming community.
> Neither of us think we should be able to use trademarks. You see WotC-legal's
> change to the OGL as a WotC-only move. I see it as a general move. (I don't
> see ANYTHING in the OGL as WotC-only, even if they DO want it.)
I do not see anyting in the OGL as WotC-only right now either.
But I do see the new clause as only serving someone with a
valuable trademark that others want to latch onto. When I first
read the message, I thought "doesn't bother me since I have no
interest in anyone elses trademarks and I don't have any trademarks
that others want to use." But now I think, the new clause would
put extra onus on me to research trademarks and make life more
difficult for people who want nothing to do with trademarks.
Instead of just criticizing, I'd like to suggest that the new
clause added to the D20STL would accomplish much the same goal
if official use of the D20 logo had real market clout. Anyone
motivated to promote their products with dubious attachment
to D20, D&D, etc. would choose official D20 instead. Anyone
who would still choose to go the dubious route would probably
avoid the OGL anyways.
Cheers,
--Kal
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
