Lizard wrote:
> Faustus von Goethe wrote:
> >
> > Where's the benefit if you do not plan to sell? There are plenty of
> > downsides to using OGL if you are developing "not-for-profit", but I don't
> > see the benefits. Maybe you could fill us in on on what you see as the
> > upside.
>
> Access to all other OGL material.
>
> I know that if I put material under the OGL, and see it used in a
> non-OGLed document, I will be a bit irked.
Except that there's nothing preventing me from using all of your OGL material
while simultaneously keeping all of my material closed. And your hands are tied
-- it doesn't really matter how irked you are.
Of course, that's a purely self-interest/Ayn Rand analysis of the situation. If
someone has a wider perspective on things and is willing to selflessly place
their material under the OGL -- all well and good. But I think we need to be
cognizant of the fact that there are very good reasons *not* to use the OGL with
something.
> > 3. TRADEMARKS: If you ise OGL, you can never say "This module is for D&D
> > 3E", "... Forgotten Realms", "... Ravenloft", "... whatever".
> >
> Ditto. When was general trademark law repealed?
This is simply a bad interpretation of trademark law, Lizard. Saying that your
product is compatible with someone else's is not an infringement of trademark law
-- the courts have ruled on this several times. Now, Wizards can go the Palladium
route of simply trying to sue you into oblivion and force you into an out of
court settlement -- but that doesn't change the actual legality of the situation.
> Indeed, I would not be surprised to
> see a 'revised web policy' to the effect of 'If you use our trademarks
> WITHOUT using the OGL, we will be forced to send our lawyers after you'.
Which would be yet another attempt by Wizards to use the OGL to imply legal
rights which they don't have.
Justin Bacon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
