About the only thing it may offer is an
interpretation of the OGL that may jeopardize those thousands of dollars.
In fact, such a license, if widely spread may cause Hasbro to halt future
OGC releases.
I don't know that it would per se jeopardize thousands of dollars if they didn't use the license. The interpretation would be wholly non-binding on parties not using such a license.
Regarding parties who don't use a clarifying license, a judge would likely listen to briefs, common industry practices, etc.
The only thing a clarifying license would say is that the current license has some gray areas. I think that's patently clear to anyone who gives it a single pass through. You have to "own PI"? So how are people PI'ing uncopyrightable and unpatented rules? What standard of "ownership" is being applied?
A clarifying license could at least create consistent interpretations for parties who used such a meta-license.
The legal downside of such a clarifying license is that it could potentially estop you from raising alternate interpretations and contrary claims in a court of law. The upside, is that the likelihood that you'd go to court with another vendor using a clarifying license over some gray area would be very, very low.
Now, one can argue that people aren't going to court now. People aren't going to court now, not because there aren't disagreements over licensing issues that should be resolved really in some fashion, but because it's unclear how the chips would fall in court.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
