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
So the phonebook is a stretch, I would like to read a summary of the case to which you are refering. I have heard of arguments that make a particular judge's definition of "substantial" very difficult to predict (so litigation is significantly more risky) but in a case of complete copying, that ma
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.
>
print and unavailable, you would then only have copyright responsibilities to the author of the section of the anthoolgy and OGL responsibilties to Malhavoc.
Cheers
David Shepheard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Chris Helton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: [OGF-L] Who can
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
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 23:52:21 -
"David Shepheard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > And yes, by registering something as copyright or a
> > trademark you are creating product identity, whether
> > you have anything to do with the OGL or not.
>
> You don't register things as copyright, you just
From: "Chris Helton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third
PartyBeneficiaries?)
> And yes, by registering something as copyright or a
> trademark you are creating product identity, whether
> you have anything to do with t
> 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 i
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 is P
> 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/og
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
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,
> [EMAI
> 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
> 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
> t
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:
> If you disagree with me, find me a basic book on Contract Law that would
> go through the above steps and then say the result is not a contract.
I can't speak for American law, but my lawyer up here in
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
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 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 lic
> 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 li
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
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 has grant and consideration, offer and
> acceptance. And, to the best of my knowledge (and I could be wrong),
> any contract can have third party beneficiaries
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
On 2 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re: [OGF-L] Who can
declare Product Identity (Thi:
> That may depend on the jurisdiction, but isn't necessarily true (if
> memory serves) in all jurisdictions. What's most important is whether
> the language of the license can be construed 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 va
In a message dated 3/2/2005 9:12:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
as such in the contract.>>
That may depend on the jurisdiction, but isn't necessarily true (if memory serves) in all jurisdictions. What's most important is whether the language of the license can be constr
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 produc
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:04:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
Games? Beta Games would then be a third party that benefits from the protection of the
OGL.
>>
Yes.
However, Chris Helton seemed to contend that third parties could benefit from PI protections even if they
From: "Tim Dugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third
PartyBeneficiaries?)
> On 28 Feb 2005 at 21:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > However, there's nothing saying explicitly that PI has to be declared
> > b
In a message dated 3/1/2005 12:20:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
more clearly I can say it, is that the PI declaration
is not the only PI that exists under the OGL.
>>
Weldon, he seems to now be claiming that:
a) only trademarks need to be declared as PI; and
b) everyt
--- Weldon Dodd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, you've lost me too. The license says that any
> material that is eligible to be PI must be declared
> to be PI and must be excluded from OGC to
> actually be PI. It must also appear in a work
> licensed under the OGL to be
> covered by the OGL. Un
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Helton
> For the last time, I have never said that PI doesn't have to
> be identified. Saying that there is other forms of PI (as
> defined be the license) does not mean that you do not have to
> declare PI. That is just not the only type of PI that
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Helton
> My godyes! 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.
Not necessarily. There
> From: Chris Helton
> Have you ever heard of copyright and/or trademark
> infringement? It happens all the time, and all that the OGL
> does is hardwire it into the license.
The OGL doesn't define copyright and trademark infringement. It only says
that trademarks are also eligible to be PI if
Okay
Put down the mouse and step away from the keyboard
Now take a deep breath, and then take a few more.
When this thread started, I thought I had an idea of what was
actually being discussed. Now I am not so sure.
I think that it might be better if Lee gave us a specific example
In a message dated 3/1/2005 11:14:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<
does a third party designate PI without releasing OGC?
>>
Good eye.
That doesn't quite answer Chris' other implication that once something is PI, it is PI to everyone everywhere, even if they aren't a part
> Are there rights for third party beneficiaries under the license?
I would think that a third party could sue a publisher to challenge Section
5, "Representation of Authority to Contribute." They could argue that the
publisher did not have authority to contribute because they don't own the
materi
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Helton
> But what you said above is what I am tryign to say.
> You don't have to be bound by the OGL to make a declaration
> of PI.
Section 2 - The license only applies to OGC released under the license. How
does a third party designate PI without releas
39 matches
Mail list logo
