Brad Thompson wrote:
> No, this particular section pertains to derivative works. If you base your
> OGL work on someone else's work, you cannot use their names or the names of
> those publishers to market your work without permission. Imagine that
> Jonathan Tweet created an OGL module. If you modified it, you would not be
> able to say 'By Jonathan Tweet' in your marketing materials without written
> permission. You would still need to give credit to his work, but that would
> be in the 'Contributor Credits' section.
>
> Your example is about trademarks, rather than the names of contributors.
>
More Concern:This, and other clauses, seem to undermine the utility of
the OGL to smaller publishers, while enhancing it for 'big names' --
thus adding fuel to the "Open Gaming is Commie-Capitalist Plot!"
flamage.
That is, under the OGL, I can write a module which is compatible with
D&D, using OGLed material by Cool Designer Johnathan Tweet -- but I
cannot SAY anything more than "This module is based on the D20SRD", just
like thousands of other modules are.
This is not a PERSONAL concern, since I have no commercial aspirations,
but from the perspective of general acceptance of the OGL, I think it's
important to consider. There are a lot of people circling, looking for
any sign that the OGL is a plot/trick/fraud/deception, and they'll leap
on any wording which seems to give an advantage to WOTC.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
