Kal-
No one is mandating morals. We are just saying you are wrong. It isnt a flame to say
you are wrong.
For example, lets say you made a module and advertised it as "an expansion to
Necromancer Games adventure Rappan Athuk" or if you said "compatible with Necromancer
Games products!" right on the front and you didnt get permission from me. Or lets say
you release a product and advertise it as "compatible with" some other d20 company.
Guess what? Even without the OGL in place you get sued and get an injunction against
you releasing your product. Why does this happen? Because companies work hard to build
an image and they dont want third parties tarnishing that image by improperly
associating themselves with the company IP.
So the bottom line is: NO. It is not "perfectly within [your] rights to produce a
[product] compatible with Snakemen of Blablabla module and say so."
That is just flat out wrong. If the owner of the product Snakemen of BB thinks you
have tarnished or diluted their trademark/IP they will sue you. Of course, if you are
the owner of the product, then you can do whatever the hell you want. I would hope you
could get your own permission from yourself to use your own product names.
If you actually are going to release products and are actually thinking about the real
world ramifications about this then the issue is not simply who wins in the end (it
may be that you prevail in the suit mentioned above) it is about not getting sued in
the first place. This clause promotes the "safe harbor" concept.
As a matter of law does this clause restrict a small business producer in these
uncharted waters? Yes. Does it offer protection? Yes. So where does the balance lie? I
think it clearly lies in favor of the protection it offers to small business in this
arena. Thus, the restriction is good.
Clark
>>> Kal Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/01 4:54 PM >>>
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, John W. Mangrum wrote:
> If the trademark is closed content, then you have no right to use it,
> *regardless* of this new clause in the OGL license. I know this topic
> has been taken up with you before, but see, there's this thing called
> intellectual property rights...
According to existing practice and existing trademark law
it is perfectly within my right to produce a compatible with
Snakemen of Blablabla module and say so. The new clause
prevents me from doing this. Eventhough "Snakemen of Blablabla"
uses the game mechanic which I put into the OGL. This is because
the new clause in the OGL provides extra protection for trademark
owners over and above the law.
I am trying to explain why the new clause does not serve some
of us who want to participate in open gaming. But it seems like
some people just want to flame and mandate their morals on the
entire community even if their particular view bypasses the long
standing trademark laws and practices built by many bright and
reasonable people over many years.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
