>From: "Brad Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 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.
Agreed and I follow your example perfectly (indeed, anticipated it). IMO
this is one of the "weaknesses" of the PI concept - by definition, it
includes EVERYTHING that the author defines as PI, even Open Content. I
think what Kal was complaining about oh-so-many-months-ago was the
possibility of using PI to "CLOSE" parts of a work that should be "open".
If we have a "FALSE CLOSING" using PI, you have to ask yourself, who is the
wronged party (ie who should have the right to challenge it). Its obviously
not the Originator of the Open content. HE doesn't care. He already cut it
loose. Not the foundation. That is explicitly not their role.
My only assessment would be that it is the community. ie: Kal.
Faust
>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
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
