From: "John of the Collective" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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.
The Open Source organization tried and failed to register an "Open Source"
trademark. The PTO doesn't feel that "Open Source" is a valid mark, and I
doubt that they would feel that "Open Gaming" is a valid mark either. The
OSI is exploring the option to create an "OSI Certified" service mark, but
from what I can see, that effort has gone nowhere; since their intention was
to lock down the public definition of "Open Source" and keep that term out
of the hands of people who used it in a way they disagreed with. "OSI
Certified" is far less interesting to the bulk of the membership of the OSI.
Realistically, the OGF would have to file for and then defend an "OGL
Certified" mark, and I don't think that the available resources should be
spent in that effort. I think there is a lot of heavy lifting to do just
building support and creating some proof-of-concept products before we can
begin to start talking about codifying a plan for reviewing and approving
products with a service mark.
Ryan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
