Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dcollins" data-source="post: 1023022" data-attributes="member: 876">Reposting from my thread in &quot;General&quot; on the subject...The assertion the &quot;d20&quot; is Product Identity creates a direct legal contradiction, because &quot;d20&quot; is itself used throughout the SRD (in Basics, Combat, etc.), which is identified as being Open Game Content. You've got something identified as both section 1(d) and 1(e), even though those &quot;specifically exclude&quot; each other.(afstanton, to your point, this is otherwise as it should be... nothing identified as PI can at the same time be in the SRD as OGC. &quot;d20&quot; stands out as the single exception to this which creates a highly distressing legal contradiction.)And...(For those not up on the history, during questioning over the revised conversion license with its own legal typos over a year ago, a WOTC spokesperson suggested that WOTC wanted to trademark &quot;d20&quot; (again, not just &quot;d20 System&quot;), even though no such trademark ever showed up at the US Patent &amp; Trademark Office. Unclear whether this re-indicates the confusion on that, desire for that, or a mistake.)I can tolerate some imprecision in material which is &quot;just a game&quot;. However, sloppiness in what is alleged to be a binding legal agreement really apalls me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dcollins, post: 1023022, member: 876"] Reposting from my thread in "General" on the subject... The assertion the "d20" is Product Identity creates a direct legal contradiction, because "d20" is itself used throughout the SRD (in Basics, Combat, etc.), which is identified as being Open Game Content. You've got something identified as both section 1(d) and 1(e), even though those "specifically exclude" each other. (afstanton, to your point, this is otherwise as it should be... nothing identified as PI can at the same time be in the SRD as OGC. "d20" stands out as the single exception to this which creates a highly distressing legal contradiction.) And... (For those not up on the history, during questioning over the revised conversion license with its own legal typos over a year ago, a WOTC spokesperson suggested that WOTC wanted to trademark "d20" (again, not just "d20 System"), even though no such trademark ever showed up at the US Patent & Trademark Office. Unclear whether this re-indicates the confusion on that, desire for that, or a mistake.) I can tolerate some imprecision in material which is "just a game". However, sloppiness in what is alleged to be a binding legal agreement really apalls me. [/QUOTE]

Verification