> 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?
I think that's a good way to look at it. There's OGC, PI, standard, and trademarks--which you can use if they're OGC, but you can't say you're compatible with the trademark. Thus, if a spells-book was to call its spell names as trademarks but not PI, you could use the names as they are, but you couldn't make a new spell and say "this spell is like (tradmearked spell)", or renamed the spell and say "this spell is just like (trademarked spell)" without permission. It's a semantic note, but trademarks aren't "content." They're just marks that have meaning, and you can't indicate compatability if you don't have permission. DM --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using Road Runner's Web-based e-mail. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
