On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, John Nephew wrote: > did; most likley, trademark rights). However, there is NO WAY a court would > interpret the policy as a "license." I suggest a court could interpret the policy as a waiver. ------------- For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Rogers Cadenhead
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Kal Lin
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Jason Lotito
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Christopher L Weeks
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Faustus von Goethe
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Faustus von Goethe
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Clark Peterson
- RE: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution LaPierre, Bob
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Christopher DeLisle
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution John Nephew
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Kal Lin
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution John Nephew
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Clark Peterson
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution John Nephew
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Ryan S. Dancey
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Jason Lotito
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Faustus von Goethe
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Russ Taylor
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Russ Taylor
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Clark Peterson
- Re: [Open_Gaming] A D20STL caution Russ Taylor
