>From: "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>From: "Faustus von Goethe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I am confused then. If it is not a license, doesn't the fact that you
> > (WotC) are allowing the use of your trademarks (not enforcing them)
>provide
> > a precedent that cannot be legally revoked?
>
>Have you read the policy?
Not recently, and I see that was an error on my part, as it has either
changed since I last read it or my memry has failed me.
>It stipulates that you cannot use our trademarked logos. It stipulates
>that
>if you use one of other other trademarks in text, you must include a
>mention
>that it is owned by us.
>
>Just to be clear - that's not a license either. That's just how the law
>works. It's a >notice< to the otherwise uninformed of what they can do to
>avoid getting a nasty lawyergram, as a courtesy.
Note that I am not (in any way) in favor of irresponsible use of the online
policy. I simply think that (for FANs) irresponsible use of a WotC online
policy has vastly less potential for damage than irresponsible use of the
OGL/D20.
Also, "license" was apparently the wrong word to use to convey the point I
was trying to get across - that (under trademark law) once you allow to the
community a particular use as "acceptable", that it would be very hard to
later decry that particular use.
The word "waiver" has since been mentioned as the correct one.
Sorry for the confusion.
Faust
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
