OR, Beta Games can secure a licensing agreement from Acme Games, and act as
Agent under the terms of the agreement to designate content as PI, like
Mongoose does with Babylon 5.
So, here's my question: What happens if there is a violation of PI use, say
one of Naughty Games's product include a PI
In a message dated 3/2/2005 4:11:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, here's my question: What happens if there is a violation of PI use, say
one of Naughty Games's product include a PI that is actually licensed to
Beta Games but owned by Acme Games, and Naughty Games try to
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:04:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wouldn't this then mean that Beta Games would be making PI declarations on behalf of Acme
Games? Beta Games would then be a third party that benefits from the protection of the
OGL.
Yes.
However, Chris
On 2 Mar 2005 at 8:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They
threaten me, saying they'll sue me under the OGL for breach. They
aren't a party, but claim to be a third party who automatically
benefits from the OGL (just as, they claim, anyone in the world, be
they a contributor to an OGL product or
In a message dated 3/2/2005 9:12:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, IIRC, third party beneficiaries of a contract must be denoted
as such in the contract.
That may depend on the jurisdiction, but isn't necessarily true (if memory serves) in all jurisdictions. What's
I think the answer to this question is not so much whether third parties were explicitly allowed for, but more whether third party beneficiaries are consistent with the intent of the parties using the OGL.
I don't think third party beneficiaries were intended by the license (which is admittedly
In a message dated 3/2/2005 10:24:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the key point here is the word "contract".
Licenses do not have third party beneficiaries. And the OGL is a
license...
The OGL _is_ a contract. It has grant and consideration, offer and acceptance. And,
In a message dated 3/2/2005 11:39:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is a license.
But licenses with grant, consideration, offer, and acceptance are contracts under U.S. law.
If they are merely a freedom to act (with no consideration exchanged) then they are merely a
On 2 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re: [OGF-L] Who
can declare Product Identity (Thi:
The OGL _is_ a contract.
It's not a contract. Neither I nor WotC had to sign anything when I use
it. It's a license.
___
Ogf-l mailing list
In a message dated 3/2/2005 11:39:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the terms offer, acceptance, grant, consideration are used
in this license. And it is a binding contract.
It is a conditional license with only one party identified by name. It is
a license with
Title: Message
Man when you guys
want some listtraffic you don't screw around :)
It went from 0
messages to over 100 in a couple of days!
Bryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
In a message dated 3/2/2005 11:59:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not a contract. Neither I nor WotC had to sign anything when I use
it. It's a license.
Contracts don't have to be signed they can be verbal. You can even have contracts which are engaged in without
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:01:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is a conditional license with only one party identified by name. It is
a license with terms, some of which outline situations by which the
license can be terminated. That is not a contract.
It is a
Here we go.. I finally found the Groklaw link I was looking for, but
before posting it, here is an except from the article...
Here is a definition of 'license' from Steven H. Gifis' Law
Dictionary, 2d Edition:
LICENSE: A right granted which
From your own article, Tim (on the GPL):
Why isn't it a contract? Because there are no further agreed-upon promises, no reciprocal obligations...
Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work
The essentials of a
1) Acme Games publishes a non OGL roleplaying game
with no OGC declared.
2) Several years later WotC bring out the OGL and
Acme Games joins the OGC community.
3) Someone at Beta Games phones up the guy that runs
Acme Games and says:
I've been looking at some of your old stuff and
there is
I can't speak for American law, but my lawyer up
here in Canuckistan told
me it's not a contract but a license with terms of
limitation when I did
my initial review of the OGL and d20 STL with him.
In a sense, both are right. From a big picture view,
any time two people (or more) agree on
Wow. Ignore my last post about contract and license. I
didnt know this discussion had gotten this technical.
I see we are way beyond the generalities I was
speaking in in the last post.
Clark
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:53:25 PM Eastern
Standard Time,
[EMAIL
By the way, I love Canukistan. That is hillarious. I
am stealing that, I hope you dont mind :)
I'll grant you a limited license ;)
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
LOL. So are you saying you are declaring that as PI?
:)
And if so, is that automatically declared because it
is a product name, or is that enumerated PI? :)
Oh and are you declaring that as a part of a work or
are you endorsing the anyone in the world can just
say something is PI and it
20 matches
Mail list logo
