-----Original Message-----
From: Martin L. Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Everyone who wants YAM (Yet Another Mark) needs to first agree on WHY you
>want YAM, or you'll be discussing at cross-purposes:
True.
>* 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.
I do *NOT* want Free20 to replace d20. So I guess I'm in the first camp
(Freeport would be perfect, for example.)--but I don't see a problem with
someone using non-d20 rules (character creation) and releasing them with the
Free20 stamp.
But, then we're in the problem where someone could try and circumvent d20
with "my" trademark... hmm... Banning commerical releases *might* be a
necessary evil. (Then again, requiring *everything* to be Open, to the
point where someone could just pen out a few names and then photocopy at
will is probably not a good commerical license...)
DM
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
