Martin L. Shoemaker wrote: >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of >>Clark Peterson >>Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 6:38 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] Publishing under the OGL >> >>I think people confused using other's OGC with what >>happens when they designate their own non-OGC content >>as OGC and thought that meant they lost the rights to >>their own stuff, which they do not. >> > >OK, Clark, you're the lawyer; but I think you're missing something here. >That usually mean's I'M missing something. Can you point it out? > >Notice the wording of Section 3: > >**************************************************************** > >3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your >acceptance of the terms of this License. > >**************************************************************** > >Note that it DOESN'T say: "By Using the Open Game Content OUTSIDE THE >TERMS OF ANY OTHER LICENSE You indicate Your acceptance..." Nor does it >say "By Using the Open Game Content WHEN THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR INTENDS >THIS LICENSE TO APPLY You indicate Your acceptance..." In other words, >it seems to me that, whether you intend to enforce it or not, anyone who >uses your OGC in any way as defined by the OGL is bound by the OGL. It >looks to me like the act of using the OGC counts as Offer and Acceptance >under the OGL, without regard to other agreements. >
But the licensee isn't using the open game content. The words may, in fact, be identical to the words in the material released under the OGL, but, by going to the copyright holder directly and licensing the copyrighted material directly, they are avoiding the OGC entirely. > _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
