Specifically, it would be something that allows a TPP to make use of certain branding (such as the stylized & we saw on the 1.2 draft) but applies content restrictions, such as the much-maligned section 6f. The main difference is that the cure for a breach is "you have to remove the branding" rather than "you can't sell your product at all". This could involve destruction of inventory, which has potential to be expensive, but for things like pdf or POD it's going to be fairly negligible.
You do know that the reason the D20 license no longer exists is because the courts determined that no part of it was enforceable since game mechanics can't be copyrighted, trademarked, or patented. Right?
You do know that the reason the D20 license no longer exists is because the courts determined that no part of it was enforceable since game mechanics can't be copyrighted, trademarked, or patented. Right?
Your statement is... wrong in so many ways that I don't even think you understand the question.
No court has ever ruled on which parts of the SRD are rules (not copyrightable), expressions of rules (copyrightable), or not rules at all (copyrightable).
The d20 STL (not SRD...STL is a completely different beast) was never about copyright in the first place. It was about trademark law. It failed because people found the original version more trouble than it was worth (which, obviously, would need to be fixed in a new version, if one exited).
Specifically, it would be something that allows a TPP to make use of certain branding (such as the stylized & we saw on the 1.2 draft) but applies content restrictions, such as the much-maligned section 6f. The main difference is that the cure for a breach is "you have to remove the branding" rather than "you can't sell your product at all". This could involve destruction of inventory, which has potential to be expensive, but for things like pdf or POD it's going to be fairly negligible.
You do know that the reason the D20 license no longer exists is because the courts determined that no part of it was enforceable since game mechanics can't be copyrighted, trademarked, or patented. Right?
Your statement is... wrong in so many ways that I don't even think you understand the question.