> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Kim
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 7:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Free20
>
>
> I personally would disagree with #2. I don't see why the
> d20 trademark should be neccessary, and removing it would mean that
> people could do things like release alternate character creation
> systems as "Free20". Also, I'm not too sure about the "identifying
> names" bit. There should be room to have a distinctive mark
> for, say, the original makers of a world. However, if all the
> names in the package are PI, then the world really isn't "open" in
> my opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't seem to go
> with the "Free20" concept.
Everyone who wants YAM (Yet Another Mark) needs to first agree on WHY you
want YAM, or you'll be discussing at cross-purposes:
* One group wants YAM for D20 material that is completely open. It's unclear
whether that covers commercial releases like Freeport or not. This group is
entreating Wizards to endorse YAM as an additional mark that encourages D20
use and thus PHB sales. (Others are skeptical that Wizards would want any
part of this.) They believe that the Open YAM adds marketing value.
* One group wants YAM for stuff that specifically does NOT need to be D20,
and particularly in that it describes character creation. This group would
be fools to think that Wizards has any interest in endorsing YAM for these
purposes. They don't care, because they want YAM to indicate compatibility
with SRD without having to comply with the D20 STL.
It really seems like there are at least two YAMs being discussed here, maybe
more. I think this confusion makes the discussions really convoluted.
Martin L. Shoemaker
Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com
http://www.UMLBootCamp.com
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
