The other issue is whether Party C's use of the material derivative of Party
B's PI or Party A's OGC? I've not seen the materials that were discussed so
couldn't say that Party C can or can't claim their OGC came from Party A's
original version or Party B's derivation. Knowing this, I'd say this is one
of those situations that is best avoided as its the type of grey areas that
lawyers and politicians love to manipulate in the best interest of their
client.
----
Kele / G'razel / Sritthh-Kahal / Hermaphroditee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brad Thompson
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 1:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] d20 and Naked Licenses
> Faustus von Goethe
>
> In this case, I think that not only would Kal be FULLY within his
> rights to
> do this, but he also would be well within the SPIRIT of the Open Gaming
> Foundation as expressed on its website and official FAQ.
There is a HUGE caveat to this assessment. This is pretty convoluted but if
you follow it through I think you'll see what I mean.
In your example:
Party A Creates an OGC work
Party B Creates a derivative work of A, but marks some of the derivative
material as PI
Party C Creates a derivative work of B, but marks the material derivative of
work A which party B called PI as OGC
Both Party B and Party C have violated the OGL. Party B violated the OGL by
not making the derivative material OGC as required by the OGL. Their
license to use the OGC is subject to termination upon notification of the
breach. They have two options: They can remove their product from the
market or they could remark the derivative material as OGC. Regardless of
what happens to Party B's work, the license between B and C stands unless A
challenges C. That's what is meant in section 13 of the OGL about
sublicenses surviving termination.
Party C has violated the OGL by using material marked as PI in OGC. It
doesn't matter that the material was wrongly marked, it is still a violation
of the license. There are now two people who can claim Party C to be in
violation: Party A for deriving from an unauthorized work, and Party B
because Party C did not have the authority to contribute Party B's work as
OGC.
Party A probably has no interest in pursuing the matter, since they
ultimately got what they wanted (the derivatives of their original OGC is
now OGC again). But Party B might not be so forgiving, especially if they
terminated their license rather than curing the breach. If they have
terminated the license then Party C had no right to use the derivative
material Party B had created, and are in violation of the OGL by not having
the authority to contribute the work. It should be noted that under certain
situations, Party A *MIGHT* have the authority to contribute Party B's work,
but unless they do so Party C has no rights to it whatsoever.
On the other hand, if Party B elected to cure the breach my marking the
derivative material OGC then Party C is in the clear (because Party B gave
them the right to use it), and everybody is happy.
Bottom line: two wrongs do NOT make a right, no matter what the 'SPIRIT' of
the Open Gaming Foundation. Vigilante tactics like this are bad for
everyone involved.
-Brad
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
