Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnNephew" data-source="post: 1023039" data-attributes="member: 2171">I'm sorry, I don't see that.&nbsp; I think you're reading that into their text, mistaking what you think their motivations are for what they are actually doing.&nbsp; No where do I see them say, &quot;We claim &quot;d20&quot; as Product Identity when used in circumstances X, Y, and Z, but not as product identity common usage in text as indicating a twenty-sided die.&quot;&nbsp; Nor do I see them provide any contextual limitations on the other terms they now claim as Product Identity.&nbsp; They just say: This is Product Identity.&nbsp; This means that to use &quot;this,&quot; whatever it is, they expect you to have a separate licensing agreement or written permission.In the past, WotC had no need for any delineation of product identity.&nbsp; If it was in the SRD, it was Open Content, and never Product Identity.&nbsp; If it wasn't in the SRD, it was not Open (and thus did not need to be Product Identity).&nbsp; There were no trademarks in the SRD, and thus no need for trademark licenses if you used just the SRD and the OGL.&nbsp; To use certain of WotC's trademarks (d20 System logo, mention of Dungeons &amp; Dragons, etc.), you had to follow the D20STL.&nbsp; Very simple.Now that's out the window.&nbsp; Now they claim that things that were not product identity in the past (the three letters &quot;d20&quot;) are -- something that may not even be a valid claim under the rules they themselves laid down.&nbsp; Now additional agreements are necessary, or the D20 System Trademark License will have to be expanded to cover additional Product Identity permissions as well as trademark licensing.But we're not at that point.&nbsp; We're talking about WotC claiming Product Identity, as quoted in the first post in this thread.&nbsp; The word &quot;trademark&quot; appears nowhere in that post.&nbsp;&nbsp; Bringing trademarks into the picture only clouds the issue.If &quot;d20&quot; is a trademark, then there is no need to label it as Product Identity, since it already falls under the protections for trademarks that the OGL explicitly provides.&nbsp; That is why I don't think this conversation involves trademarks.I see no statement in the WotC material that suggests any kind of distinction between one usage of &quot;d20&quot; and another.&nbsp; If you can find a statement that provides any kind of contextual limitation on when the three letters &quot;d20&quot; are Product Identity and when they are not, I would very much like to see it.Indeed, since Product Identity is specifically something found within Open Game Content, their labeling &quot;d20&quot; as Product Identity seems inherently inclusive of the various ways it is used within the SRD.I suspect you are correct about their motivations -- they want to assert control over the use of &quot;d20&quot; in product names and marketing.&nbsp; However, it looks to me like they are doing so in a poorly thought out way, and they are undermining much of the simplicity and clarity that had previously guided their handling of the licenses.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnNephew, post: 1023039, member: 2171"] I'm sorry, I don't see that. I think you're reading that into their text, mistaking what you think their motivations are for what they are actually doing. No where do I see them say, "We claim "d20" as Product Identity when used in circumstances X, Y, and Z, but not as product identity common usage in text as indicating a twenty-sided die." Nor do I see them provide any contextual limitations on the other terms they now claim as Product Identity. They just say: This is Product Identity. This means that to use "this," whatever it is, they expect you to have a separate licensing agreement or written permission. In the past, WotC had no need for any delineation of product identity. If it was in the SRD, it was Open Content, and never Product Identity. If it wasn't in the SRD, it was not Open (and thus did not need to be Product Identity). There were no trademarks in the SRD, and thus no need for trademark licenses if you used just the SRD and the OGL. To use certain of WotC's trademarks (d20 System logo, mention of Dungeons & Dragons, etc.), you had to follow the D20STL. Very simple. Now that's out the window. Now they claim that things that were not product identity in the past (the three letters "d20") are -- something that may not even be a valid claim under the rules they themselves laid down. Now additional agreements are necessary, or the D20 System Trademark License will have to be expanded to cover additional Product Identity permissions as well as trademark licensing. But we're not at that point. We're talking about WotC claiming Product Identity, as quoted in the first post in this thread. The word "trademark" appears nowhere in that post. Bringing trademarks into the picture only clouds the issue. If "d20" is a trademark, then there is no need to label it as Product Identity, since it already falls under the protections for trademarks that the OGL explicitly provides. That is why I don't think this conversation involves trademarks. I see no statement in the WotC material that suggests any kind of distinction between one usage of "d20" and another. If you can find a statement that provides any kind of contextual limitation on when the three letters "d20" are Product Identity and when they are not, I would very much like to see it. Indeed, since Product Identity is specifically something found within Open Game Content, their labeling "d20" as Product Identity seems inherently inclusive of the various ways it is used within the SRD. I suspect you are correct about their motivations -- they want to assert control over the use of "d20" in product names and marketing. However, it looks to me like they are doing so in a poorly thought out way, and they are undermining much of the simplicity and clarity that had previously guided their handling of the licenses. [/QUOTE]

Verification