I don't feel that this is necessarily the intent of what the license had in mind, but it may be a reasonable interpretation. I'm certain others will comment on whether it is or isn't.
Perhaps you are correct, however, in that instance, it seems that if the Contributors are getting together in one big room and authorizing the most recent member of the chain to act by proxy, it is incumbent upon him to provide you with a complete list of Product Identity.
In either case, I think your reading of "parent-child" licenses is another possible valid interpretation. In which case, you would be required to steer clear of all PI terms in any of the works listed in your own Section 15 - but - and this is an important note - you could ignore the terms in anyone's work who was not in your S15. And even that would get onerous, effectively forcing everyone to keep everything fairly close to the primary work.
In other words, if Company A makes a work from the SRD and Company B makes a work from the SRD, and Company C creates a work from Company A's material, it doesn't care what Company B's PI designation is. However, if Company D makes a work based on Company C's material, it has to care about Company A and Company C's PI (again, ignoring Company B's, since it is not an "ancestor" of Company D's work).
At the end of the day, though, I think I'll just create my own derivative works, steer clear of using the PI that I am aware of, and rely on the 30-day cure period to keep my backside protected should I inadvertently tread on "direct ancestral" PI.
Gotta love the 30-day period... keeps the lawyers out of things. :-)
--The Sigil
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
