On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:14:23 -0700, Ryan S. Dancey wrote: >In other words, the person who placed that content in a file that >was licensed with the OGL was not authorized by Wizards of the Coast >to do so. Since that material was not authorized for licensing with >the OGL, all Wizards has to do to correct the problem is remove it.
You gotta be kidding me. Once something is published under the OGL, the terms of the license only apply if the employee or employees who prepared the material had authorization to release the material, something that's not evident at all in any OGL-licensed work? If that's true, which I doubt, it's a poison pill for the whole open gaming movement. Any company that doesn't like the consequences of OGL licensing in one of its products can claim that it was done by an employee without authorization, and the rest of us are obligated to correct material -- aside from the notion that some kind of "de facto" permission exists when the material has been out for a while. What happened to the concept that once something is released under the OGL there's a perpetual license to that work under those terms? The best we can hope for is "de facto" permission for works that have been out for a while? Under your premise, can WOTC declare that the SRD was released by a rogue employee named Ryan Dancey and is no longer available under the OGL? -- Rogers Cadenhead, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 06/14/2003 Weblog: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
