My god....yes! If you violate the definitions of
Product Identity under the OGL then you are violating
copyright and trademark lawas too. You can't use the
IP (intellectual property) that doesn't belong to you.
Dude, I'm not trying to be rude. I'm trying to be as polite and serious as I can. Do you understand the difference between standing to sue for breach of contract and standing to sue for copyright/trademark infringement? They are VERY different things.
This thread is about contractual construction and the standing of third party beneficiaries to a contract.
Or at least that's what I started it to discuss.
I thought one of several points you raised was interesting and I came here to see if your idea had any credence. I stated I didn't believe it, but I was looking for counterarguments against my position that might be persuasive.
Instead I found Weldon quoting Section 2 (should have thought of that myself) which pretty much spells out what the license applies to. That plus the post I just made on judicial analysis of third party beneficiary claims pretty much answers my questions to my satisfaction. The license doesn't anticipate third party beneficiaries except, possibly, through their agents (i.e., in a licensed product where the agent declares something as PI on behalf of someone else).
If you aren't a party to the license and if you aren't an eligible third party beneficiary you have no legal standing to sue for breach of contract under the OGL.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
