On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, woodelf (lists) wrote:
> but, who's to say that the author didn't get the OGC legitimately,
> and re-use it, and find someone who's willing to pay her for said
> OGC? that is, was the chain of creation:
>
> A) author --> OGLed work --> OGLed work for profit (that just happens
> to have the same author as the original)
>
> or
>
> B) author --> OGLed work
> \
> \--> for-profit work
>
> 'cause the former is certainly legal under the OGL, and i don't know
> how, given the nature of the WOGL, you could forbid it. if you
> really don't want people making money, even secondarily, off of your
> work, the WOGL isn't a good choice. you could probably make it
> nearly impossible to reuse the content by mixing in enough PIed
> content, and then only granting licenses to it for not-for-profit
> ventures, but it's no guarantee.
Maggie isn't trying to prevent people (in general) from making money off
of the OGC, she's trying to figure out a way to prevent specific people
(those who have created the OGC under contract with her NPO) from turning
around and using the same OGC material for profit. This is in order to
protect the non-profit status of the BWR.
And I'm pretty certain (given the level of generality & hypothetical
provided) that you can clearly do this through a contract with the author.
Such a contract places no restrictions on the OGC; it places restrictions
on the author. If the author doesn't like such restrictions they simply
shouldn't accept the job. This of course may somewhat limit who's willing
to work for BWR, but I'm sure that doesn't come as a surprise. But
individual contracts can certainly limit a specific individuals' ability
to use OGC, or even to publish OGL material completely. And such
contracts in no way interfere with the terms of the OGL since they are
restrictions on the individual (who obviously must enter into such
conracts voluntarily) and not on the material published under the OGL.
I must say I am a little concerned that you would even think you could get
better legal advice on this issue on this list than from your own
attorney. If for no other reason than the fact that your own attorney
will have such a clearer picture of what it is your are wanting to do than
can be conveyed in a typical e-mail (as can be seen from most of the
responses). My advice to people who don't have faith in their attorneys
is to get a second opinion from another attorney. And a good attorney
(like a good doctor) shouldn't have any problem with a client who wants a
second opinion. And even asking for a second opinion will likely get you
a much more detailed explanation which may alleviate the need for another
opinion.
alec
(the guy with a law degree who isn't an attorney)
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
