If the stuff from the CC was declared as product identity then you might get away with it, using the CC license as a license for the distribution of the product identity, though you'd probably have to have the CC licensor's permission to declare his stuff as product identity, since, if memory serve
<>
I think I agree with that.
<<
I dont know what meaning that third definition, as you
call it, has.
>>
That's what I was afraid of. When Tim disagreed he never came up with any interpretati
In a message dated 9/6/2005 2:56:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
spell out the specifics if your reading is correct.
>>
So, back to my big question -- what signficance do you think we should give to the third OGC meaning?
Because your reading seems to also nullify that.
In a message dated 9/6/2005 2:07:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<1. it gobbles up all other definitions. The law doesnt
like that.
>>
There are redundancies directly built into the license. Section #8 is little more than a restatement of one of the types of OGC in 1d.
So, Clark, I'm back to the big question -- what does the third meaning of OGC mean if it doesn't mean what I think it means.
I'm pretty much always willing to be proven wrong, particularly in IP law, provided that I learn something in the process. I do civil rights law lobbying and analysis for a
In a message dated 9/6/2005 11:16:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
paraphrasing and shortening up of the language. Which,
IMHO, is pretty good support for my position that you
are ignoring other parts of the license, including
language from the definition itself.
>>
It say
In a message dated 9/6/2005 1:06:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
since it's in WotC's benefit for licensed work to have more OGC and not
less whenever anyone but WotC uses it, a court should rule ambiguities
in the favor of closing the content--that is, that where it isn
Re: contractual constructions, Clark -- whether or not we agree that WotC has disproportionately more power in the contractual relationship than we do... I'm willing to table that, and maybe even table that in your favor, ceding the point to your experience on the relative power of parties in the
In a message dated 9/6/2005 9:26:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
validity of your parsing of that part of the license to come up with
the phrase in the first place.
>>
Spike, how's my parsing strange. There are 3 different meanings listed for OGC. I'm asking about one o
In a message dated 9/6/2005 2:26:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< IMHO, that
only isolates the definition (which seems poorly
worded to me) and seems to ignore the other sections
of the license.>>
I'm not isolating the other parts of the contract. Section #8 is simply a
In a message dated 9/5/2005 10:53:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
then it becomes much trickier to sensibly chop a work up into lots of
little pieces. Let's say you have a chapter of feats, and all the feat
names are PI, and all the feat mechanics are OGC, and nothing ha
In a message dated 9/5/2005 10:16:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
OGC and PI, it would be slightly redundant to identify both of those,
doesn't mean that there is some 3rd bit.>>
I absolutely concur 100%. And in the example of a single covered work in a collected work (
In a message dated 9/5/2005 10:01:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
you prefer one that has almost exactly the same effect?
>>
I'm not certain I'd agree that almost complying with a license is the same as complying with a license. And, depending on how a judge rules, if he
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:32:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
trademarks anywhere in the magazine to indicate compatibility or
co-adaptability.>>
I think that's true, via the "in conjunction with" clause.
<
Races for ShadowRun(tm)"?
>>
Interesting question. I'm no
In a message dated 9/5/2005 7:34:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
when you realize that non-game rule content doesn't have to be PI or OGC.
>>
Except that to come to that conclusion you have to utterly ignore the part of the license that says:
"OGC means any work covered
In a message dated 9/5/2005 8:30:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
myself and for those people you mentioned (and a few others I've
noticed), it sends a copy both to the reply-to entry
(ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org) and the original sender.
I've not seen any situat
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:40:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<>And they've made it quite clear that they don't want to prohibit a
>magazine having some WotC OGL-using articles, and some "regular" articles.
While they might like to enable that potential, the license do
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:21:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
text of this work, save the index , table of contents, and credits, is
Open Game Content." In your opinion, are you saying that my company
trademark has just been declared OGC, because it wasn't declared PI
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:21:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Tim's Question: "Why do you have to clearly
>indicate which portions of the work are OGC if the whole work is
>considered to be OGC just by putting it with the license?"
>
>
Because the work, as far as th
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:20:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
perfectly reasonable to me that you could declare a PD element as either
OGC or PI>>
While the definition of PI is poorly punctuated, it seems to read that PI must be declared as such by it's "owner". Sinc
In a message dated 9/5/2005 5:20:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
dispute and the author says "i intended the license to mean X" and a
witness says "i knew the license was supposed to mean X, so used it that
way" and the defendant says "i don't know what he intended, the
In a message dated 9/5/2005 11:31:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
automatically (which pretty much equals the term "by default") OGC,
except for what is PI. At least that is what you said on the rpg.net
thread.
>>
It's sort of question whether "automatically" is an app
I'm going to dissect the definition below and show it applied to a sample work of fiction. Here's the whole definition.
"'Open Game Content' means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is
Ryan, can you check the list's settings. I am accidentally sending out posts to Tim and Clark directly instead of to the list. This happens not infrequently with various people. It's a result of the "reply-to" headers being setup incorrectly somehow, since I'm just hitting "Reply"
Lee
_
In a message dated 9/5/2005 1:28:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
I don't know if "by default" is the appropriate word. I've only claimed that you must declare as OGC everything that you don't declare as PI.
What is your interpretation of:
"OGC... means any work cove
Subj: Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Date: 9/5/2005 9:08:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: HUDarklord
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 9/4/2005 5:19:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
license that says "the entire wor
In a message dated 9/4/2005 3:51:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< A magazine featuring many
articles is a "work".
>>
Just to prove my point further, Ryan -- here's a definition from Title 17:
A “collective work” is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or ency
In a message dated 9/4/2005 3:51:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
the things that we didn't want you to be able say like "This product is
compatible with Dungeons &Dragons(R)" on the cover and claim that it was
not a part of the "work" covered by the OGL.
>>
No. It woul
In a message dated 9/4/2005 12:20:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
1) Open Content
2) Product Identity
3) Text that is within the covers of the book but is not within the
declared bounds of the covered work (also commonly referred to as the
"third type of content")
4) Text
Tim has focused on this part of the OGC definition:
"'Open Game Content' means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly
In a message dated 9/4/2005 12:20:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
that as something distinct from "a book." That is, he's of the school
that says "the covered work" isn't the equivalent of "the
product," because "the work" can mean an individual OGL-bound article
within a
In a message dated 9/3/2005 11:11:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
Or does "work" simply mean "that text to which the OGL
applies"?
>>
That's sort of tangential to the point of the thread, because I'm maintaining that no matter which of those it means, whatever is "the te
In a message dated 9/3/2005 11:08:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
that I listed above.
>>
That would not be, definitionally, part of the "work covered by the license".
<
if the whole work were considered OGL just by applying the license
to the work. To put it another w
In a message dated 9/3/2005 6:23:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
Of course this is true. Nobody is debating this. You have to do it. Nobody said it wasn't legally required of you to do it. You've missed the point of the post which is arguing that the phrase "OGC me
I've been discussing this "off list" with people so I've decided to post on list.
It involves the definition of OGC.
"OGC... means any work covered by the license,... but specifically excludes Product Identity."
Contractual construction requires that you give effect to this if possible, even if
In a message dated 8/25/2005 9:08:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
licence itsef does not give them any special advantage.
What gives them a special position is that they own the copyright to D&D,
and D&D is the biggest RPG. This was true for TSR back in the 1990s-- even
In a message dated 8/25/2005 8:48:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
Steve, I would like to point out, that if they had used a Creative Commons License, the GPL, or just about any reasonably constructed IP license I can think of, the results would be, in part, the same:
Th
In a message dated 8/25/2005 3:53:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
um, neither Polyhedron nor Dragon has been owned by WotC for quite some
time. I'm not claiming that either of these incidents occurred to a
WotC-owned work, just that WotC turned a blind eye.
I thought Paiz
In a message dated 8/25/2005 3:52:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
*might* be trademarkable, but copyrightable? Is there *any* caselaw
saying that a concept can be copyrighted, distinct from the _expression_
of that concept, even as a collection? Because, by default, we a
In a message dated 8/24/2005 3:33:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
I didn't say they couldn't license outside of the OGL. What I said was (quoting from an older post),
"Nothing about the license allows it to apply disparately to WotC as opposed to the rest of us."
In a message dated 8/24/2005 2:30:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
That's entirely different from saying that the OGL applies differently to WotC when they use it. When they actually use it, they get no special treatment simply because they drafted the license.
<
art
In a message dated 8/24/2005 1:33:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my opinion, you'd do well to do some research into how copyright law defines "work" before continuing this chain of logic.
Ryan
What, in particular, do you disagree with?
Do you disagree that:
1) Wor
In a message dated 8/24/2005 12:12:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<>And there's nothing at law that says the drafter of a license
>can ignore it's provisions.
In that case, even Wotc wouldn't be able to publish the PHB as they'd be
restricted to the material in the SRD a
In a message dated 8/24/2005 12:04:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
did their 2 or so OGL'ed articles, and any OGL'ed ads), but I recall seeing
it for quite a long time now.
>>
Thanks for the info, Ken. I wonder if they used to do that, but I'll leave Woodelf to do the re
<>
There is NO exclusion in the license that allows WotC to be tr
In a message dated 8/24/2005 10:09:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
from which all else is derived. This does create some disparity between
them still needing to use the OGL in WotC works that include third-party
material (Unearthed Arcana, etc.), but I don't know if it ext
In a message dated 8/24/2005 9:35:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Steven Trustrum] I imagine, considering WotC is the license’s originator rather than a third party, their lawyers have told them there are some aspects of the license that will not apply to them. I’m not a l
Is anyone having reply-to problems. A lot of the posts off this list, when I click "reply" are set to reply to the original author instead of to the list. Is this a problem with the list or with mail headers for the individuals I'm replying to?
Lee
___
In a message dated 8/24/2005 8:52:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
No, in fact I wasn't speaking that way. I said NOTHING about a typical ad. I said that there were some advertising materials historically that have used the OGL and then I referred to M&M.
Also, I find
In a message dated 8/24/2005 3:43:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
builds the authority to declare PI upon copyright law? How is that
possible, given that almost everything in the exemplary list for PI is
not protectable by copyright?>>
Almost all of them are protectable
In a message dated 8/23/2005 9:36:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
There is NOTHING in the OGL about 5% OGC for coverage. That's the d20 STL. And I said Mutants and Masterminds, which is not d20 STL-covered.
The extended promotional sample was in one or two magazines
In a message dated 8/24/2005 3:21:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
method to promote and expose their product to potential customers. The
publisher of the Covered Product have every right to advertise their
OGL-based product, just as long they follow section 7 of the OGL, a
In a message dated 8/23/2005 2:15:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dragon is licensing directly from WotC, if I'm not mistaken. Dragon
doesn't need to follow the OGL or d20 STL at all because it is getting
direct permission from WotC to use its open content AND PI.
Dragon ha
In a message dated 8/15/2005 6:54:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Define "Ownership".
* Specifically allow attribution of OGC to specific sources.
Oh, there are a helluva lot more reasons than that. They've been discussed ad nauseum. The section with ownership has bad
In a message dated 8/15/2005 9:16:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
most public domain words can't be PIed (a position I agree with), but
you disagree about the possibility of PIing a name derivable from a
public domain source as it applies to a particular character? (That
i
Guys, maybe somebody cares to cite some IP law on this, but I thought that under IP law you can own a name under only three circumstances:
a) it is a trademark of yours
b) you can own a name in specific connection with a very distinct character concept, but that ownership is then severed when the
In a message dated 8/14/2005 10:23:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
to indicate this is the case.>>
My literal reading of the PI definition says to declare PI it must be ownable and you must own it. Meaning you can't declare public domain stuff per se.
<
disallow claim
Spike, by my reading of the OGL, Product Identity must be "clearly identified as Product identity by THE OWNER of the Product Identity".
Mongoose can't claim ownership over a public domain concept (at least not as the term "ownership" would be applied to intellectual property). They could well c
Spike, that's a very interesting example re: Necromancer games. The fact that the third type of content exists in a multi-part work does not surprise me and does not conflict with my reading of the license.
Clark has effectively (if I understand you correctly) treated his work as a compilation (l
In a message dated 3/20/2005 3:22:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
I've got another question, does the licence actually say that you are only bound by Publisher A's PI declaration. If his particular gaming product mentions 19 other gaming products in its section 15, are y
In a message dated 3/18/2005 9:42:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Such as pursuing a copyright infringement suit, if there is a violation of
copyright law?
Actually, the license sections to which I refer limit fair use compatibility declarations. If those sections are vo
In a message dated 3/18/2005 12:42:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does it matter? Anyone can use any version of the OGL, and so far it hasn't
been challenged in court yet.
Um, it could matter a lot. It could dictate whether or not some of the terms of the license contradi
In a message dated 3/17/2005 11:56:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
Read the license. It says section 15 is the copyright of your _OGC_. That should convince you.
<< Interesting. Section 6 tells you to update the section 15. I previously had the impression that you
In a message dated 3/17/2005 11:56:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
...or...
...section 3 forces the publisher of the magazine to abide by things like the section 7 restrictions of the OGL throughout their *entire* magazine.
>>
Right, and which is quite unclear. T
In a message dated 3/17/2005 11:56:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
You could get involved, but only regarding things that put you at risk somehow, or if someone didn't have your name listed in Section 15. But there's almost no way I can breach against YOU for your I
I asked Clark about this offlist, and he thought one or two of these were interesting points, so I figured I'd raise it here.
If you borrow Publisher A's OGC and agree not to use their PI, are you thereafter bound not to refer to their PI in _all_ your OGL covered works or just in the OGC covered
OK, so anyone got any feedback on how to resolve these seeming inconsistencies? Any way to read all of these terms and give all of them effect without rendering any of them void or without construing them against the plain language of the contract?
a) the "work covered by the license" is just OGC
In a message dated 3/16/2005 11:14:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
You don't _have_ to do it. If your work is 100% OGC then you'll have the same piece of information in both places. Otherwise, weird or no, check out the license and read it for yourself.
<
>>
It
In a message dated 3/15/2005 6:57:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
It doesn't use the word work, because other conditions of the OGL apply to
the work but the license to "use" the content only apply to the OGC in the
work.
>>
Algebra
OGC = any work covered by the license
In a message dated 3/15/2005 9:13:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
Gaming Content.
I think that's the third content.
>>
It could just as easily be PI. Besides. I've never said a collected work or compilation couldn't contain non-OGC and non-PI. I've said the license sa
In a message dated 3/14/2005 9:55:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
If 99 out of 100 people thinks you should do something, but 1 person does not, and the 99 are doing something that goes against a clear, unambiguous, explicit definition in the contract, then the 99 are
In a message dated 3/14/2005 9:55:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
Right, but each party can only sue for things that damage themselves. If I'm handing Green Ronin IP in a perfectly fine way, but botching the Mongoose IP then Mongoose is likely the only one who can s
In a message dated 3/14/2005 9:55:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So where have I got this wrong? Is adding this sort of statement actually a "registration"
or are you saying that declaration of copyright is not sufficient to gain protection?
David, this is simple. When
In a message dated 3/14/2005 9:55:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
In _all_ parts of the USA.
<< but does this make copyright protection
null and void if you *don't* register it? >>
No, you just can't pursue some legal solutions until after you register. So, if some
In a message dated 3/14/2005 4:06:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
a collection of articles (such as a magazine) that reprints previously
separate articles, each article might have it's own copyright notice. I
don't see how/why this could/should be any different for a re
In a message dated 3/13/2005 9:59:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
Well, it's unclear what "in conjunction with" means, so perhaps they can make compatibility declarations outside of OGC and PI in a multipart work. Perhaps they can't. Some open source software lice
In a message dated 3/13/2005 9:59:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
Well, if you look at a magazine, you'll know that a work can contain other works, each with their own distinct copyright and bibliographical information.
Since the license says specifically that yo
Regarding the difference between magazines and books as "works containing other works". I am more inclined to believe that a judge would consider which work is the covered work by looking at your Section 15 (since that is supposed to list the copyright declaration of your OGC).
I think a judge wi
In a message dated 3/13/2005 8:05:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<1) There *is* a third content which *is* covered by standard copyright law, but additionally must obey the no compatibility "in conjunction with" bit of the OGL (and is therefore covered by some of the OGL),
In a message dated 3/13/2005 8:04:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
Actually, if all parties to a given version of the OGL are in the U.S., then only U.S. law is important.
Outside the U.S., your argument may hold true.
Lee
___
In a message dated 3/13/2005 8:04:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
Um. First, the only poin
Regardless, the license specifically says it should be the copyright notice from your OGC which is included in the section 15.
Arguably this would mean that what's listed in Section 15 does not include your PI, but I attribute this to extremely sloppy draftsmanship in the license which at times tr
In a message dated 3/9/2005 4:16:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
Slavish organization is not entitled to copyright protection per the U.S. Supreme Court in Feist:
http://floridalawfirm.com/feist.html
<<
In any case, I do know that some large databases (OCLC, is on
In a message dated 3/9/2005 1:57:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
of industry usage which boils the s15 as simply a list of what sources
you have derived from contain OGC. It has absolutely nothing to do with
your declaration of what is or is not OGC in your product, as
In a message dated 3/9/2005 10:04:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's your opinion of the form of the Section 15 notices that Atlas
Games uses for some books: "Open Game Content from [title], copyright
[date], Trident, dba Atlas"?
While I question whether or not a judge
In a message dated 3/9/2005 7:20:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
It would if you wanted to use their logos. I haven't seen the redraft of the STL, but the original STL said that in any work you had covered by the STL you agreed not to mention ANY of their products other
In a message dated 3/9/2005 7:20:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
Dude, go ask WotC if they'll sue, because you are really talking about a possible breach of their STL, not the OGL. It's really the language of the STL that you are talking about, and that license practi
In a message dated 3/9/2005 7:20:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
Oh, no. What should be PI and what you've designated could be two different things. Same with OGC. Just because I fail utterly to declare borrowed content as OGC doesn't make it "not OGC". It makes i
In a message dated 3/9/2005 7:20:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
No, you wouldn't. But, as a matter of law, I doubt that Green Ronin would have legal standing to sue for enforcement or damages.
<
book had 20 companies in its section 15 would it not have 20 companies th
In a message dated 3/8/2005 2:25:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
Same deal for other reference works -- like the phonebook -- you can reuse the content, but you can't just copy substantial portions of the "work" because the compilation is covered under copyright law.
>
In a message dated 3/8/2005 7:45:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>You don't register things as copyright, you just declare them to be
>copyright.
I think you're wrong here.
Under U.S. Law you _can_ register things for copyright. Things are copyrighted when they are set do
In a message dated 3/3/2005 3:57:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<>
Certainly the person would NOT be a party to the contract. The license say
In a message dated 3/3/2005 3:56:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
OGL are (1) what *can be* PI/OGC, not necessarily what is [except for
the "anything already declared OGC" part], and (2) exemplary, not
definitive.>>
I agree. One thing that struck me, after I sent a mess
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:53:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
Were it n
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
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:01:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
a license with terms, some of which outline situations by which the
license can be terminated. That is not a contract.
>>
It is a unilaterally drafted contract of adhesion. The fact that it has termination
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 spee
In a message dated 3/2/2005 11:39:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
>>
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 form of promissor
In a message dated 3/2/2005 10:24:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
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, to the best of my knowledge (and I coul
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 va
1 - 100 of 462 matches
Mail list logo
