I'm trying to understand this employee mistake scenario.
Hypothetical: Lime-Green Ronin publishes Mercenaries of Seaport as 100 percent open text. The company intended to do this, but the only written documentation of this intent is the book itself.
One month later, an animation company offers to option the characters in the book for development as a TV series.
Lime-Green Ronin announces on its Web site that an employee mistakenly put the "100 percent open text" declaration in Mercenaries of Seaport. The company only intended to open Appendix III, paragraph 5 and the stat block and combat description of the spam golem.
How would third-party reusers be safe from this situation? It's not like most companies are chatty enough to clarify their intent for any of their work. -
Well, let's see. Is there an extensive public record of Lime Samurai announcing their intent to make nearly all the content closed? Does this follow the pattern of their previous books? Have they spoken at length about how "It's all closed but the spam golem"?
WOTC has a pretty extensive record of public comments prior to the release of the SRD that "Dungeon Master" is not OGC.
If this went before a jury, it would be pretty open-and-shut.
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
