In the OGL:
"Product Identity" appears numerous times and "Product identity"
appears once in the definitions and once in the Q/A. I'll assume
this is just inconsistent usage and both refer to the definition
given in 1e of the OGL.
"Registered Trademark" appears numerous times and "registered
trademark" appears once in the definitions. I'll assume this is
just inconsistent usage and both refer to a USPTO registered
trademark. (I suggest using "registered trademark" since the
USPTO doesn't capitalize it and it is not a term defined in the
OGL).
"Trademark" is defined in 1f and then appears in clause 7.
"trademark" appears in 1a and 1e. I'll assume the distinction
is intentional and "Trademark" refers to the definition given
in 1f of the OGL and "trademark" refers to a word, phrase,
symbol or design, or combination of words, phrases, symbols or
designs, which identifies and distinguishes the source of the
goods or services of one party from those of others (from the
USPTO web page).
I believe these assumptions would then be consistent with the
following statements about the OGL:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg04257.html
which I could not find anymore follow ups to in the archive.
WotC has not released anything under the OGL. They are not a
contributor at this time and have not indicated anything as
Product Identity *yet*.
"Monster Manual" does not appear in the USPTO trademarks database
"Dungeons & Dragons" does appear in the USPTO trademarks database.
Thus I believe, at this time, you can write whatever the law
allows you about the Monster Manual.
When WotC releases something under the OGL and specifically
lists "Monster Manual" as Product Identity then you will not
be able to refer to it.
If WotC releases something under the OGL but do not list "Monster
Manual" as Product Identity then it will be a Trademark as defined
in 1f. You will not be allowed to indicate compatibility or
co-adaptability but "Monster Manual" may appear in your product
otherwise.
"Distribute" and "distribute" both also appear numerous times and
could use a closer look.
I'll finish with a little rant. I've argued against the PI clause
because I believe it limits the creativity and freedom everyone
enjoys under federal law. Some people whose idea of a logical
argument is "Appeal to Motive" argued for the clause. Yet these
same people refer to WotC products under euphemisms.
WotC doesn't want people to refer to their products and use the OGL.
I get a disturbing sense that exploiting a loophole in the OGL is
not only acceptable behavior but praised by some in the community.
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
