Typical IANAL disclaimer.. I believe that in this situation, you could use the trademark, but I would also include a trademark statement in your product (ie: Bounding Bunny logo is trademark of Bounding Bunny Games, and is used with permission in accordance and through the OGL v2.0 ) The really funny part is that if they did unintentionally OGL their logo, you can't even protect it by declaring it a PI for them in your document because you can't close open material. If they did open it to OGL use, either intentionally or unintentionally, it is fair game, in my opinion. As has been stated before, a misunderstanding or lack of understanding for the OGL does not protect you when you make a mistake.
Now, using it, if it was unintentional, does enter into a possible moral quandry.. Do you take advantage of a simple mistake? Or do you do the Good Sam thing and shoot them a note so they can cover their asses in later printings or e-publications? That decision is best left up to each player in this game.. -R > Hello, all. > > I have a hypothetical question. (Well, all right, it's a little more > than hypothetical, but I'm deliberately staying vague for now.) > > Suppose I have a document which is entirely OGC. It might be because the > author intentionally declared it as such; or it might be because the > author did a poor job of declaring the OGC, so the whole document is > covered by default. > > Now suppose that document DOES NOT declare the author's logo as Product > Identity. It might be because the author declared no Product Identity; > or it might be because the author did a poor job of declaring the > Product Identity, so that one cannot be sure what is and isn't PI. > > Now further suppose that the author DID claim the logo as a trademark. > > Now it's clear what the author intended, in the case of unclear > designation: the logo is not OGC. We can play semantic games, arguing > that because it's unclear, the logo is up for grabs. But we all know > what he meant. > > But suppose it were clear cut: "All OGC", no PI designation, and the > logo claimed as a trademark. What would be the status of that trademark? > The OGL forbids indicating compatibility or co-adaptibility with > trademarks without an express, independent Agreement outside the OGL; > yet it allows reuse of OGC under the terms of the OGL. If the trademark > is OGC, is this a loophole that allows others to reuse it without regard > to Section 7? If the trademark is NOT OGC, does this mean that we have > FOUR kinds of content in an OGC work: OGC, PI, standard copyright, and > trademarks? > > 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://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l > --------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
