On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Alec A. Burkhardt wrote:
> But if someone isn't interested in using others' trademarks or creating
> their own trademark, the new clause has no impact on them. The new clause
> puts absolutely no burden on anyone who wants nothing to do with
> trademarks. If you are not using trademarks, the clause simply doesn't
> pertain to you. It only burdens those who wish to use trademarks - and
> not unreasonably IMO.
If I put out a fully open module called, "Snakemen of BlaBlaBla"
and someone else later registers the term Snakemen or BlaBlaBla
then sends me a nasty letter, I could stand up for my rights
through the trademark dispute process. The new clause adds legal
ammunition for the people who can register trademarks. Exactly,
how this would happen I am not sure but if someone would register
a trademark and then tell people to stop using the term, they would
probably also try to obtain standing to use the new OGL clause too.
The whole purpose of adding the clause is to create legal ammunition
to protect trademarks with. Not everyone is reasonable like WotC.
Those TSR guys are still around somewhere *wink*
> > 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.
Sorry, I should have said, "Anyone who would still choose to go
the dubious route would probably avoid any such clauses in the OGL."
Which brings up another question, this new clause would have to
apply to the closed portions of a work? For instance, if someone
uses some open content in the body of the work but creates their
own completely closed front and back cover, they would still be
required to follow the no trademarks clause on the covers.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
