From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Justin Bacon
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 12:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Open_Gaming] Product Identification
<< No. Its rather obvious that no such confusion is present. "D20" is a
trademark.
"D&D" is a trademark. My whole point is that there is not trademark for
describing products developed under the OGL. >>
Forgive me, but I still don't get it: what benefit would "Tilez" receive
from such a trademark? As I read your original post, the trademark would
mean "compatible with a host of other RPG systems, all of which are released
under OGL." In other words, games compatible with D20SRD, but not compliant
with D20STL. I DO see a benefit in such a trademark for those games; but OGL
is larger than those.
<< I suggest you read some of Ryan Dancey's reasons behind the OGL:
Specifically,
standardization in the marketplace. Take, for example, his favorite analogy:
The
Windows operating system. Now imagine that Microsoft had set things up so
that
people who developed programs to run under Windows 98 were not allowed to
tell
anybody that they were compatible with Windows 98. >>
All examples and analogies granted. But D20 is the trademark for that
standardization, as I read Ryan's essays; and D20SRD is the actual standard
mechanism. OGL is just the legal structure which enables D20 to exist in an
open fashion that protects Wizards' trademarks while more freely enabling
D20SRD-the-standard. But OGL is not in any way the standard mechanism
itself. I interpret his statements to mean that OGL should be the equivalent
of the GNU license that can be used by anybody to open their work. It just
so happens that the first "anybody" will probably be Wizards.
<< Well here you're talking about releasing products under a separate OGL,
right? >>
Nope. As soon as Wizards officially releases their OGL, I hope to release
completely non-D20/non-RPG products using their license. It was my
understanding -- and I haven't seen any reason to believe otherwise -- that
the released OGL could be used by anyone to open any game. If, say, SJG
wanted to open GURPS, they could open it under the exact same license.
Assuming Wizards does a good job in formulating the license in the first
place -- a matter for some debate, I know -- we'll all benefit by reusing
it. If my understanding is wrong, please let me know. I almost posted
"Tilez" to the Web last month, held up only by the lack of the OGL.
<< I'm talking about products specifically developed under WotC's OGL (this
was
both implicit and explicit in my message). Are you intending to release
Tilez
and Take under an OGL, but prevent people from using the word "Tilez" or
"Take"
in their derivative products? >>
If in fact I release these under OGL (intentions and actual events sometimes
don't mesh well when work piles up), I will not wish to take the extra time
and cash to trademark these terms. No benefit in that at all, since I'm just
putting these out for others to play with. If anything, the LACK of
trademarks on "Tilez" and "Take" may encourage people to keep the names
prominent as the games evolve. That way, when I go to a con three years from
now and play a really cool game I never saw before, I'll be able to
recognize that this is what "Tilez" grew into.
Martin L. Shoemaker
Emerald Software, Inc. -- Custom Software and UML Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.EmeraldSoftwareInc.com
www.UMLBootCamp.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
