----- Original Message -----
From: "John W. Mangrum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Open_Gaming] Some license updates
> Brad Thompson wrote:
> >
> > Sorry John, but that's not what was said. Ryan's change covers the
> > entire publication, not just the open content. Trademarks cannot be
> > used without permission of their owners in any part of a publication
> > that uses open content. Given his track record so far, I suspect that's
> > what he meant.
>
> Yes, I understood that. But that wasn't the point I was addressing. Let
> me put it another way: Whether or not the OGL license includes the
> stipulation that you must obtain permission from the legal holders to
> use any trademarks in your OGL product (be that in the open or closed
> portion), the fact remains that if you use someone else's trademark
> without permission you are at risk. It's not as if we'd all be able to
> use trademarks willy-nilly if this clause didn't exist.
Yes, but as I understand it, the change covers all uses of trademark and not
just those that would be applicable because of the field that the product
was in. We would be required to get permission from WOTC to use even
"Dungeon" or "Dragon" because even though trademark law primarily protects
that use in a "magazine" format, the OGL, or explanation we have, does not
specify this at all, it just says "trademark." In other words, the use of
"colt" would be barred from use without permission, by the suggested OGL
change (even if your referring to a young male horse) because it is "a"
trademark" held by "Colt" and the proposed OGL change, does not seem to
specify what areas/fields the trademarks are from.
All, of course, as I understand it. I guess the specific wording WOULD help
here.
Later,
Ryan Fisk
Riinamiib Isirk (for the Vilani in the audience)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
