An OGL Trademark (to me) would not imply compatibility, Rather it would be an
instant high profile easy to see and read indication of the licensing involved
in the product. Thus If I have a preference for OGL material, I could know on
sight if a product is OGL.
"Martin L. Shoemaker" wrote:
> 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
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
