On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Faustus von Goethe wrote:
> >From: Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >No one is trying to scare people. But when you write:
> >
> >"my meaning was not that a hobbyist *will* get more,
> >but that the hobbyist *may be* less likely to face
> >formal litigation."
> >
> >That is dangerous. It is totally untrue legally as
> >well as practically.
>
> If you make the "FreeD20" license as we (at least >I<) have been discussing
> it, then there would be much less likelihood of monetary damages. Making it
> ALL OGL and ALL FREE effectively eliminates the downstream liability issue
> - since "Party C" would never have SPENT the $50 grand in the first place.
>
> "FreeD20"
> "SandboxD20"
> "FAND20"
> "FAN20"
> "FAN-D-20"
>
> Hmmmm......
I like the 'Free20' term, as it doesn't contain the sub-part 'D20',
which WOTC might object to being used, even in this context.
But, I'm a bit confused as to whether the Free20 is a license, like the
OGL, or is a trademark or servicemark or something? If it isn't a
license, would a new license separate from the OGL be needed? If so, is
it legal for us to derive a license from the OGL since it is copyrighted
with all rights reserved (including modification) by WOTC?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Harrington bryce @ neptune.net bryceharrington @ yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
