Alec A. Burkhardt wrote: >But my statements, which Faust was responding to, said nothing about >Free20 as a whole. They specifically addressed the issue of the Free20 >logo. What is the purpose for which someone would put the Free20 logo on >a product? If it's not because they can't use WotC's d20 logo or because >they don't want to use WotC's d20 logo, what is the reason? I sort of see >a third, i.e. those group of people who will use both the Free20 logo and >the D20 logo - but the only explanation I've seen for doing that is >altruism. (and I am a member of the Free20 Yahoo group, so I have read >much of the discussion there.) > There's a selfish reason, too.
By adding the "Free20"(or "project") logo, you're letting yourself connect to a secondary network, in case at some future point you want to release a product that violates the terms of the D20STL. A blurb in the legalese section of a work would satisfy the interests of anyone who cares about the logos. >>Rather, Free20 was meant to mean "this is 100% open gaming", as a way to >>flag works that were "photocopy & distrubite" level works. It has since >>grown to mean more than that, and might have been replaced in the 100% >>open gaming idea, but that was the original idea. >> > >Right, but the "this is 100% open gaming" or just "this is open gaming" is >taken care of by the open d6 logo. I've never questioned this was part of >the whole Free20 effort. But it is irrelevant to the purpose of using the >Free20 logo. > From where I sit, lost and out of the loop, the Open d6 logo replaced what I coined "Free20" to mean. (I'm actually very cool with this, if anyone cares.) >Ok, I've already e-mail Mike about this, and it probably really belongs on >the Free20 list, but here's one of the groups problems. You need to >actually define what your trademarks mean before you try to decide what >they are. And you probably need to lose quite a few of the ones on the >link. I told Mike you could probably get by with three: > >1) an open gaming logo (already taken care - the open d6) > >2) a compatible with XXX logo (where XXX is whatever you decide to name >the system currently refered to as Free20 and the Mammoth document) > >3) the name of the organization itself, which I see Mike has incorporated >as Free Gaming Association. > >The possible fourth item to trademark would be the name of the system >itself. But that depends on if the name is actually going to be used in >products (as oppposed to just the compatibility logo) and could probably >be done without registering if the name is something unique and unused >previously in rpgs. (i.e. not Free20 - if you stick with that, go get a >lawyer before going further.) > I agree 100%. And because I agree so much, I'm going to stop responding to these threads until the free20 yahoo group can get on the same page. (Everyone else probably is, and I"m just missing things...) DM _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
