> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Kim
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 12:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Open_Gaming] [ogf-d20-l] New to the list and have
> questions already
>
>
>
> However, it would be nice to have a agreed-upon distinctive
> term which could be recognized across products.
>
> i.e. WotC D&D products have both "D&D" and "D20" as marks which
> relate them to just "D20" products. Similarly, 3rd party products
> could put "blah-blah" and "D20" on products that use the D20 STL,
> and just "blah-blah" for OGF products derived from the D20 system.
Such a term could very possibly put the entire D20-as-Open-Game concept at
risk of being cancelled.
First consider the benefits of the current plan (which, never forget, is
still a PROPOSED plan, and could be cancelled by Wizards at any time):
* From the perspective of a 3rd party developer, the D20 STL and thus the
D20 logo allows him or her to indicate compatibility with D&D in an
acceptable, euphemistic fashion: "the D20 System", a well-known euphemism
for "compatible with D&D".
* From the perspective of Wizards, the D20 STL ensures that those developers
making compatible products -- thus enhancing Wizards' own sales -- are not
also directly competing with Wizards' core books with those same products.
(Other products may be direct competitors, but that's a separate issue.)
This is a value-for-value trade, and everybody benefits.
Now consider your proposed plan. A Blah-Blah developer can release a product
that IS both compatible with D&D AND directly competitive with the core
books. The OGL specifically allows this IF the SRD is released as OGL.
That's fine.
But! If Blah-Blah becomes a well-known euphemism for D20 and thus a
well-known euphemism for "compatible with D&D", that means these directly
competitive products will be more aggressive competitors for the core books.
That will also mean that there is little to no incentive to release under
the D20 STL: the only significant benefit -- everyone knowing your product
is compatible with D&D -- can be had without all the restrictions. Suddenly,
the number of D20 products will plummet, replaced by Blah-Blah products.
Is there anything wrong with this? Not from the perspective of the 3rd party
developers; and not from the perspective of the OGL, as long as
compatibility is never FORMALLY claimed (which violates Section 7). But from
the perspective of Wizards, that means the value-for-value trade has
collapsed: they are giving value, but getting little to no value in return.
And why should we care about Wizards' perspective? Because they can still
cancel at this time. Right now, Ryan is very encouraged by the number of
people who are bending over backwards to follow the rules as they release
products. But if they got nervous that they were going to give away their
IP, they could change direction in about five minutes. They could even do it
with (relatively) minimal PR fallout: pull the OGF web pages, then privately
contact each D20 producer with published material and arrange a
favorable-but-traditional license for their existing products, and discuss
licenses for products currently in production. Nobody would lose big on the
products they have already produced, and Wizards would be secure in knowing
that their market share was protected.
I see the benefits of a non-licensed compatibility euphemism; they're just
all on one side. Wizards need not even see such a euphemism to be concerned.
They need only see the likelihood of one.
Martin L. Shoemaker
Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com
http://www.UMLBootCamp.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
