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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andre" data-source="post: 2479376" data-attributes="member: 25930">This is the issue I still haven't seen a good answer to (maybe I've just missed it - we got a bit derailed there for a while  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ). Trademarks, brands, "look and feel" are clearly something that a publisher should protect. But if I create material compatible with a ruleset based on OGC, material that requires use of that ruleset, I *have* to communicate that fact to my potential customers, or risk defrauding them. I'll use True20 as an example, since it's been mentioned so often in this thread. If I produce a supplement specifically for those rules, I better say the words "True20 ruleset required". But even though everything in my theoretical supplement is legal per the OGC, those words aren't. The argument seems to be that using those words is up to the True20 publisher. Which, in effect, blocks the proper use of OGC material. (I say proper use, since there are so many legal ways to use OGC improperly)So what happens? If a publisher invests the time, money, and effort in creating a new ruleset using OGC, should the publisher be able to stop others from producing OGC material based on their ruleset, simply by not allowing the words "xxx ruleset required"? If so, does this encourage publishers to produce such material and create verbal contortions to say "True20" without really saying it? And, if the answers are yes, does the consumer really benefit from this state of affairs?</blockquote>

Verification