Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 7797165" data-attributes="member: 463">He seems to be sticking with his weird misinterpretation of OGL clause 1(e) as automatically excluding all listed elements, rather than those elements when specifically designated as Product Identity. I am slightly surprised his team of high powered lawyers have not pointed this out to him.Edit: Reading his comment thread responses to accurate criticisms in part 3, he seems to think 'Product Identity' is about 'withdrawing stuff from the Public Domain.&quot; No, it is about the consideration WoTC receives from the licensee in exchange for the consideration they grant the licensee. By the licence the licensee can't use PI at all, even nominatively. In exchange they receive a broad licence to use a bunch of material WoTC owns the copyright in. That WoTC receive consideration under the licence is what makes the OGL (afaict) a valid contract in Common-law legal systems, rather than a bare promise by them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 7797165, member: 463"] He seems to be sticking with his weird misinterpretation of OGL clause 1(e) as automatically excluding all listed elements, rather than those elements when specifically designated as Product Identity. I am slightly surprised his team of high powered lawyers have not pointed this out to him. Edit: Reading his comment thread responses to accurate criticisms in part 3, he seems to think 'Product Identity' is about 'withdrawing stuff from the Public Domain." No, it is about the consideration WoTC receives from the licensee in exchange for the consideration they grant the licensee. By the licence the licensee can't use PI at all, even nominatively. In exchange they receive a broad licence to use a bunch of material WoTC owns the copyright in. That WoTC receive consideration under the licence is what makes the OGL (afaict) a valid contract in Common-law legal systems, rather than a bare promise by them. [/QUOTE]

Verification