On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Kal Lin wrote:
> It seems we are failing to communiate here. The people who
> "#2 used open content and didn't contribute anything new but
> want extra protection for a trademark" have a product with
> 100 pages. 10 pages are directly from the D20SRD and marked
> in grey. 90 pages are closed content containing their
> trademarked hero. Nothing new is contributed to open gaming.
>
> I have no interest in their 90 pages but why should the OGL
> be burdened with a clause that provides them extra protection?
What extra protection has it provided them? You haven't pointed to a
single thing. The fact that they trademarked their hero in closed content
is irrelevant - under the OGL you can't use their closed content
anyway. And quite obviously you must have an interest in their 90 pages,
since that's where the trademark is.
> The people in #1 contributed a swamp setting. The people in #2
> start trademarking their new things in the swamp setting. The
> people in #1 would like to build on that but can't and regret
> contributing anything to the OGL at all. The people in #1 decide
> decide to go with GFDL next time and see what happens there.
What new things can people #1 trademark in the swamp setting that isn't in
open content? Anything derivative of the of the orginal groups work must
be in the open content portion, including trademarked characers. The
orginal group has no right to have access to the independent creations of
group #2 that they might choose to place in closed content under the OGL.
And once again, this appears to be you really trying to make the "forced
open" argument about copyrights and really has nothing to do with
trademarks. I consider you to be both legally and ethically wrong in
these claims concerning the concept of "forcing material into the open".
To me, it seems you have no regard for intellectual property.
later,
alec
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
