<<IMO, it is implicit that the person putting material under the license is
the one intended and required to declare what is and what isn't
Product Identity. IIRC (it has been a while since I looked at the OGL),
declaring product identity IS a part of the license, therefore the person
who originally licenses the material (i.e. puts it under the OGL) is the
one who declares the product identity.>>
That's what one would assume, Tim. It just doesn't say it explicitly. And that's why I wondered (trying to give this other guy's reading the benefit of the doubt), if a third party beneficiary of some kind (i.e., someone gaining the benefits of the license but who is not a party to the license) could declare PI that would be binding over parties who were using the OGL?
If the legalese is too vague, consider this. Tim, tomorrow you start a brand new company. You release a product. You don't use the OGL. But you write inside the front cover, "I feel that I am allowed to declare all my characters and poses as Product Identity as that term is used under the OGL, but my work is not covered by the OGL." First, is this binding over anyone, since nobody will have you in their Section 15.
I'd say, "no" instinctively. But that's bringing in the color of license intent, industry usage, etc. (HUGE factors). Those aside, the license doesn't explicitly state who can declare PI. Weird, but unfortunately true.
I think this is clear enough, but unfortunately, it is clear ONLY through inference and only with the knowledge of the intent of the license. Without that, it doesn't say anything about whether some third party can declare PI.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
