Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 1027070" data-attributes="member: 94">First of all, everyone knows what WOTC is trying to do. Most of us agree with their motives. I'm simply here to talk about the methods, which I think are flawed. They know they cannot trademark &quot;d20&quot;, and they cannot control its use through the d20 STL, as we're talking about its use by folks who are trying to use the OGL but not the d20STL. They are attempting to circumvent the use of &quot;d20&quot; on OGL-only products by shoe-horning product identity into the 3.5 SRD.In order to be the most useful to third parties, the SRD needs to be 100% open. That's my motivation (in addition to just enjoying a good discussion). Their designation, even the revised one, seems flawed to me. The purpose of the PI declaration is to designate those portions of your own Open Content that are Product Identity. Frankly, I don't know that &quot;d20, used as a trademark&quot; exists anywhere within the 3.5 SRD (I certainly can't find it used in that fashion in the 3.0 SRD); and they can't pre-emptively designate as Product Identity something that MAY be used in SOMEONE ELSE's product in that fashion. They can't carve out product identity in someone else work, they can only designate it within their own work in order to prevent its misuse elsewhere. So unless they have, in fact, used &quot;d20, as a trademark&quot; within the body of the 3.5 SRD, this effort (which I support on the merits, if not on the method) isn't going to hold up.2) Scott, I think you are incorrect. If &quot;d20&quot; is OGL in the 3.0 SRD, it is OGL forever. It is impossible for WOTC or anyone to designate anything that is Open Content as Product Identity. Read the definition Product Identity again. It specifically excludes Open Content.3) I don't believe there's ever going to be any such thing as &quot;using the 3.0 SRD&quot; versus &quot;using the 3.5 SRD.&quot; Clearly, the 3.5 SRD is a derivative work of the 3.0 SRD, so if it was ever a concern to &quot;use one or the other&quot; it would be a simple matter for someone to re-write the 3.0 SRD, entirely open, and incorporate the changes of 3.5-- adding, dropping, or changing skill descriptions, class abilities, etc. Frankly, it is my opinion that the 3.5 SRD should properly have credited the 3.0 SRD in its Copyright Notice. At any rate, this is one of the reasons I don't want to see the 3.5 SRD all muddied up...Wulf</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wulf Ratbane, post: 1027070, member: 94"] First of all, everyone knows what WOTC is trying to do. Most of us agree with their motives. I'm simply here to talk about the methods, which I think are flawed. They know they cannot trademark "d20", and they cannot control its use through the d20 STL, as we're talking about its use by folks who are trying to use the OGL but [b]not[/b] the d20STL. They are attempting to circumvent the use of "d20" on OGL-only products by shoe-horning product identity into the 3.5 SRD. In order to be the most useful to third parties, the SRD needs to be 100% open. That's my motivation (in addition to just enjoying a good discussion). Their designation, even the revised one, seems flawed to me. The purpose of the PI declaration is to designate those portions of your own Open Content that are Product Identity. Frankly, I don't know that "d20, used as a trademark" exists anywhere within the 3.5 SRD (I certainly can't find it used in that fashion in the 3.0 SRD); and they can't pre-emptively designate as Product Identity something that MAY be used in SOMEONE ELSE's product in that fashion. They can't carve out product identity in someone else work, they can only designate it within their own work in order to prevent its misuse elsewhere. So unless they have, in fact, used "d20, as a trademark" within the body of the 3.5 SRD, this effort (which I support on the merits, if not on the method) isn't going to hold up. 2) Scott, I think you are incorrect. If "d20" is OGL in the 3.0 SRD, it is OGL forever. It is impossible for WOTC or anyone to designate anything that is Open Content as Product Identity. Read the definition Product Identity again. It specifically excludes Open Content. 3) I don't believe there's ever going to be any such thing as "using the 3.0 SRD" versus "using the 3.5 SRD." Clearly, the 3.5 SRD is a derivative work of the 3.0 SRD, so if it was ever a concern to "use one or the other" it would be a simple matter for someone to re-write the 3.0 SRD, entirely open, and incorporate the changes of 3.5-- adding, dropping, or changing skill descriptions, class abilities, etc. Frankly, it is my opinion that the 3.5 SRD should properly have credited the 3.0 SRD in its Copyright Notice. At any rate, this is one of the reasons I don't want to see the 3.5 SRD all muddied up... Wulf [/QUOTE]

Verification