Mike Dymond wrote:
>> Actually, it doesn't imply endorsement at all. Quite the opposite.Compatibility and endorsement are not the same thing. And neither are implied by the Section 15. SPYCRAFT, for example, is not compatible with the SRD. Yet it lists the SRD in its Section 15. And the entirety of the OGL makes it clear that the material in Section 15 can be used without permission or endorsement.
How can it possibly indicate the opposite??? That would mean that all products
listed in section 15 are incompatible with this product??? That makes no sense.
>> On a tangent subject: I'm planning to include a bibliography in an
>> upcoming >> D20 project. Perforce, the bibliography includes a large number of >> trademarks. I'm planning to include the statement following statement to >> cover myself just in case: "The use of any trademarks in the bibliography >> should not be taken as an indication of compatibility or co-adaptability."
>> Anyone see any problems with that?
Only if the bibliography is OGC, then you cannot apply any other other terms to
OGC content beyond the OGL.
Uhhh... What terms are you seeing in that statement?
>> Then don't put your company name in your Section 15. If you put it into your >> Section 15 you have explicitly licensed its use.
Section 6 states that you have to!
and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name
to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.
There is no requirement that the copyright holder be your company.
>> What competitive advantage would that be, exactly?If by "conceivable" you mean "vaguely probable in an entirely improbable way", then I would agree with you.
brand association! Why is that concept so hard to fathom? Take a hypothetical
case: two identical books, one has a blank section 15 the other has a section 15
that includes the words Star Wars. It is conceavable that someone who does not
know a lot about RPG or d20 or DnD (think grandma buying present). The book
falls open and she just sees the words Star Wars which is a brand she recognises
and therefore decides to buy book 2.
But, again, no one is twisting your arm and forcing you to use the OGL. If you're unhappy in the requirement that you identify yourself as a user of the license and allow others to identify you as a user of the license, then this is not a license you can use.
There are work-arounds to this for the purposes of working with licensors who don't want their IP placed under the OGL.
1. Clearly identify anything and everything associated with the license as PI.
2. Minimize the amount of OGC. You'll probably want to limit to pure mechanics.
3. Don't include trademarks belonging to the licensor in the title.
The last can be tricky, but is manageable. For example, if I wanted to market the "EVERQUEST PLAYER'S GUIDE", but -- for whatever reason -- I couldn't include the EVERQUEST trademark in my Section 15, I could do the following:
1. Title the product "PLAYER'S GUIDE".
2. My Section 15 would then include: "PLAYERS'S GUIDE, Copyright 2003, [Copyright Holder]"
3. On the cover of my product I would blazon the EVERQUEST logo, and beneath it write "Player's Guide".
As far as the consumers, distributors, and game shops are concerned your product is the EVERQUEST PLAYER'S GUIDE; the Section 15 remains accurate; and the EVERQUEST trademark owners remain happy.
Justin Bacon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
