<<if you read the
definition of what constitutes product identity in the
OGL it goes beyond just a declaration of your
individual PI in a product.
>>
No, it really doesn't address the scope at all. It just says that PI declared as PI is PI. That doesn't answer the key question:
Can a non-party to the contract declare something as PI? Under U.S. contract law, you aren't typically obligated to non-parties to a contract unless they are third party beneficiaries of the contract, and those tend to be explicitly named.
Since this section doesn't explicitly suggest that there are third party beneficiaries, I'm assuming that one has to be a party to a given instance of a contract as a Contributor to declare enforceable PI.
CJH -- you are missing a key point. If some third party can declare PI, they are the only ones that can enforce my violation of their PI. They can do that in one of two ways:
a) they are a party to the contract; or
b) they are a third party beneficiary.
End of story. If they aren't a state actor, then this is the only way a private citizen has a right of action in a breach of contract suit generally. If the person isn't listed as a contributor, they aren't part of the grant/consideration process and aren't a party. If they aren't a party, they are, at best, a third party beneficiary.
Does the license support the notion of third party beneficiaries? I don't think so. I _do_ think it's vague in the area and should be redrafted for this and umpteen other reasons.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
