On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Tim Dugger wrote:
> Trademark holders benefit because they are the ones with
> something to lose if another person infringes upon their trademark
> illegally. It is that simple.
They are also the ones to benefit from stifling legitimate
uses of trademarks which the current law allows.
> If you do not like the clause as it stands, why not attempt to
> propose an alternative rather than just complaining about it. If you
> want to get changes made, just complaining about it isn't always
> the answer. Sometimes you have to take the initiative to draft up a
> better version (or what you think is a better version).
I agree and the only suggestion I have had isn't very good
(restrict the protections to only WotC). I'll spend more
energies thinking about alternatives. I've said plenty.
> >From the post in which Ryan introduced this clause, it is obvious to
> >me that WOTC will not approve the OGL (or the release of the D20
I didn't take it as such a make or break situation. My view is
that the clause was added by WotC to address one specific case
that would be damaging to their business. I presented arguments
in the hopes that someone will weigh that case against some issues.
Regards,
--Kal
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
