Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6190799" data-attributes="member: 42582">True, although my understanding (admittedly based more on Anglo-Australian than US trademark law) is that goodwill cannot be assigned without assigning other business assets.My comment was about trademark licences - I referred to "a royalty-free trademark licence of unlimited duration" - so I'm not sure why you think I'm talking about the OGL. The OGL is a copyright licence, not a trademark licence.I think you mean "rules cannot be copyrighted". Rules absolutely can be trademarked, in the sense that WotC absolutely can sell rulebooks under the trademark "Dungeons & Dragons" and if you attempt to sell RPG rules under the same trademark you will be legally liable to WotC.From WotC's point of view, here are two options: (i) release text in which WotC owns the copyright so that other can use it for free; (ii) publish my rules, maintain control over my copyright text, and let others do the work of reproducing my rules without violating my copyrights.I would think that option (ii) looks more attractive, especially given that I probably don't want other publishers publishing my rules, as opposed to publishing material to be used by those who have bought my rules from me.A publisher who attempts to "close" material which is OGC - whether OGC in virtue of a declaration of such, or OGC in virtue of being derivative of other OGC - is in violation of the license, and perhaps also in violation of other people's IP rights.Sure. But if you are suggesting that Paizo could publish PF in its current form without a licence from WotC then I think you're badly mitaken.</blockquote>

Verification