Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dungeonosophy" data-source="post: 8931935" data-attributes="member: 6688049">Kyle Brink, as paraphrased by Morrus:&quot;They didn't want the term D&amp;D to become 'that video [adult content] game' looking ahead.&quot;To state the obvious:The OGL1.0 always explicitly protected &quot;the term D&amp;D&quot; as Product Identity.&nbsp; Either Kyle Brink and his supervisors know this, and are cunningly counting on most of the listeners to not know or care;Or Kyle Brink and his supervisors are astoundingly ignorant of one of the basic foundations of the TRPG ecosystem for the past 23 years.Either way, these folks (whether they be lying spinners or ignorant yahoos) are not trustworthy stewards of our game.Furthermore, the OGL1.0 protected the term &quot;D&amp;D&quot; even more than general trademark law!Because in general trademark law, it is totally legal for a competitor to say &quot;compatible with Dungeons &amp; Dragons.&quot; But the OGL explicitly banned that phrase. See the <a href="https://opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html" target="_blank">actual text of OGL1.0a</a>:&quot;You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility[...]&nbsp; You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark[.]&quot;Thus the customary euphemism found on the cover of OGL products: &quot;Compatible with Fifth Edition&quot;, or &quot;Compatible with the Fifth Edition of the world's most popular roleplaying game.&quot;And, uh, now that the 5.1 SRD is in the Creative Commons, as long as a creator doesn't reference the OGL, there is now nothing stopping anyone (including Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilm, Facebook, NuTSR, etc., etc.) from saying their game is &quot;compatible with Dungeons &amp; Dragons.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dungeonosophy, post: 8931935, member: 6688049"] Kyle Brink, as paraphrased by Morrus: [I]"They didn't want the term D&D to become 'that video [adult content] game' looking ahead."[/I] To state the obvious: [B]The OGL1.0 always explicitly protected "the term D&D" as Product Identity. [/B] Either Kyle Brink and his supervisors know this, and are cunningly counting on most of the listeners to not know or care; Or Kyle Brink and his supervisors are astoundingly ignorant of one of the basic foundations of the TRPG ecosystem for the past 23 years. Either way, these folks (whether they be lying spinners or ignorant yahoos) are not trustworthy stewards of our game. Furthermore, the OGL1.0 protected the term "D&D" even more than general trademark law! Because in general trademark law, it is totally legal for a competitor to say "compatible with Dungeons & Dragons." But the OGL explicitly banned that phrase. See the [URL='https://opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html']actual text of OGL1.0a[/URL]: [I]"You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility[...] You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark[.]"[/I] Thus the customary euphemism found on the cover of OGL products: "Compatible with Fifth Edition", or "Compatible with the Fifth Edition of the world's most popular roleplaying game." And, uh, now that the 5.1 SRD is in the Creative Commons, as long as a creator doesn't reference the OGL, there is now nothing stopping anyone (including Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilm, Facebook, NuTSR, etc., etc.) from saying their game is "compatible with Dungeons & Dragons." [/QUOTE]

Verification