Alec A. Burkhardt wrote: >Since the term 'copyleft derivitive' has no meaning to me, I'm >going to have to venture a guess on what you are saying is the problem. >The OGL creates no new concept of copyright derivation - it exists on top >of legal system's general understanding of how copyright applies to >derivative material. If the understanding of derivative material changes, >the OGL still just sits atop the new understanding. If you mean something >different please explain. > > I meant the part of the OGL where you are required to release your new derivitive work under the OGL.
This is the "viral" nature of copyleft licences, the fundamental part that makes them sticky & useful means for what Ryan Dancy & the FSF wanted to do to RPGs and Software. It's the most attacked nature of open source software, and (from where I sit) the one most likely to be challenged in court. I know that there are some laws that regulate where and how you can transfer copyright--but then again, the OGL doesn't transfer copyright, it just compels an exchange of permission... Is it likely that if a court finds this part of the license unenforceable, the rest of it will still stand (allowing someone to make OGC-derived works but not release the new derivitive material as OGC) or is there some legal principle that would cause the whole license to be abolished if the principle consideration was removed? (If there was no consideration there wouldn't be a contract, but the OGL includes other duties than release of derivitive material as OGC....) DM _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
