> Justin Bacon
>
> Let's build a slightly more protracted situation:
> COMPANY 1 produces OGC, and identifies A as PI
> COMPANY 2 uses COMPANY 1's OGC
> COMPANY 3 uses COMPANY 2's OGC
> COMPANY 4 uses COMPANY 3's OGC and uses A
>
> COMPANY 4 would be in breach of the OGL, right? Or would they
> only be in breach
> if the OGC that they're using is OGC directly from Company 1?
Company 4 is in breach and may be contacted by any of the 3 companies to
demand remedy. Company 1 has the most compelling reason to do so.
> Compare with this situation:
> COMPANY 1 produces OGC
> COMPANY 2 uses COMPANY 1's OGC, and identifies A as PI
> COMPANY 3 uses COMPANY 1's OGC and uses A
>
> In this case, COMPANY 3 would *not* be in breach of the OGL, right?
*MAYBE*
You also have to have the authority to contribute to make 'A' OGC. Even if
you didn't make 'A' OGC and didn't mark it as PI you might not have breached
the OGL but could still be in danger of copyright and/or trademark
violations depending on the exact nature of 'A' and how you used it.
Essentially this kind of trick eliminates the 'safe harbor' of the OGL.
I'm sort of bothered by the infinitives in section 1) regarding Contributors
and Trademarks, a layman might read them to mean that if you contribute ANY
OGC you are a Contributor whether or not you are a contributor to a
particular work. If so, then you would not be able to use ANY Trademarks of
ANY Contributor once they have created OGC. I suspect that to a lawyer,
this language has a more specific meaning.
-Brad
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
